[pjnews] Computer programmer claims he built vote rigging prototype

[parallax]

Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.


related articles:

http://snipurl.com/b6ae
Wayne Madsen- Texas to Florida: White House-linked clandestine operation
paid for vote switching software

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEN412A.html
Alleged RNC staffer says Voter Fraud in Florida and Ohio: Kerry Won the
Election by at least 1,7 Million Votes
(vague in its details and unsourceable, but interesting nonetheless, if
only for the supposed identity of its author)

--

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/1024.htm

WHISTLEBLOWER AFFIDAVIT: Programmer Built Vote Rigging Prototype at
Republican Congressman's Request!
CLAIM: Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) Asked Company to Create E-Vote Fraud Software!


In stunning revelations set to rock the vote from Tallahassee to Capitol
Hill -- and perhaps even a bit further up Pennsylvania Avenue -- a Florida
computer programmer has now made remarkable claims in a detailed sworn
affidavit, signed this morning and obtained exclusively by The BRAD BLOG!

(Affidavit in .PDF format -
http://www.rawstory.com/images/pdfs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf)

The programmer claims that he designed and built a vote rigging software
program at the behest of then Florida Congressman, now U.S. Congressman,
Republican Tom Feeney of Florida's 24th Congressional District.

Clint Curtis, 46, claims that he built the software for Feeney in 2000
while working at a sofware design and engineering company in Oviedo,
Florida (Feeney's home district).

Curtis, in his affidavit, says that as technical advisor and programmer at
Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI - http://yangenterprises.com/) he was present
at company meetings where Feeney was present on at least a dozen
occasions.

Feeney, who had run in 1994 as Jeb Bush's running-mate in his initial
unsuccessful bid for Florida Governor, was serving as both corporate
counsel and registered lobbyist for YEI during the period that Curtis
worked at the company. Feeney was also concurrently serving as a Florida
state congressman while performing those services for YEI. Feeney would
eventually become Speaker of the Florida House before being elected to the
U.S. House of Representatives in 2002. He is now a member of the U.S.
House Judiciary Committee.

At an October 2000 meeting with Feeney, according to the affidavit and
BRAD BLOG interviews with Curtis over the past three days, Feeney inquired
whether the company could build a vote fraud software prototype.

At least three YEI employees are said to have been present at that
meeting; Curtis, company owner, Mrs. Li Woan Yang, and her executive
secretary, Mike Cohen. Two other YEI employees may have come in and out at
different points of the meeting according to Curtis.

Curtis says that Feeney was very specific in the design and
specifications required for this program.

He detailed, in his own words, that; (a) the program needed to be
touch-screen capable (b) the user should be able to trigger the program
without any additional equipment (c) the programming to accomplish this
needed to stay hidden even if the source code was inspected.

Though there was no problem with the first two requirements, Curtis
explained to the Congressman that it would be virtually impossible to
hide such code written to change the voting results if anyone is able to
review the uncompiled source code

Nonetheless, he was asked at the meeting by Mrs. Yang to build the
prototype anyway.

Curtis, a life-long Republican at the time, claims that it was his
initial belief that Feeney's interest was in trying to stop Democrats from
using such a program to steal an election. Curtis had assumed that
Feeney, wanted to be able to detect and prevent that if it occurred.

Upon delivery of the software design and documentation on CD to Mrs. Yang,
Curtis again explained to her that it would be impossible to hide routines
created to manipulate the vote if anybody would be able to inspect the
precompiled source code.

Mrs. Yang then told him, You don’t understand, in order to get the
contract we have to hide the manipulation in the source code. This program
is needed to control the vote in South Florida. [emphasis in affidavit]

Mrs. Yang then took the CD containing the software from Curtis, reportedly
for later delivery to Feeney.

In other meetings with Feeny prior to the 2000 elections, it became clear
to Curtis that Feeney had plans to suppress the vote in strong Democratic
precincts. In the affidavit, Curtis claims that in those meetings Feeney
had bragged that he had already implemented 'exclusion lists' to reduce
the 'black vote'. Feeney also mentioned that proper placement of police
patrols could further reduce the black vote by as much as 25%.

Curtis says that he submitted his resignation to YEI effective December
2000, but stayed on until they had found someone to replace him in
February of 2001. He eventually became employed by the Florida Dept. of
Transportation (FDOT) 

[pjnews] Treatment of Returning Soldiers a National Shame

[parallax]

Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.


http://snipurl.com/b4dy

The Way Our Country Treats Returning Soldiers is a National Shame
By Tim Pluta
The Asheville Citizen-Times / Friday 03 December 2004

Supporters of our invasion of Iraq cheerlead from their armchairs for the
women and men of our military. Some folks send packages of goodies and
letters to soldiers and sailors. Veterans for Peace stand on a street
corner each week asking to bring our troops home. These are all examples
of different ways we express our support for U.S. soldiers.

But what about support when they come back? While some historical
references reflect an effort to support our soldiers upon their return
from battle, our history of neglecting soldiers also flourishes and seems
to be getting worse.

For example, in 1693 Plymouth Colony offered support with an order that
any disabled soldier injured while defending the colony would be
maintained by the colony for life. And in 1780, the Continental Congress
offered half pay for seven years to officers who served until the end of
the war.

However, the Continental Congress also promised some soldiers land in
exchange for their service. Looking at genealogy sites on the Internet,
one can find desecendants of these soldiers still trying to collect on
those unfulfilled promises.

In 1917, Congress authorized disability compensation, insurance and
vocational rehabilitation to help support the 200,000 wounded and 5
million returning soldiers from World War I.

On the other hand, in 1924, these same World War I veterans were promised
a bonus payment of $1,000. In July of 1932, during the Great Depression,
between 12,000 and 15,000 veterans and their families marched in
Washington, D.C., to demand immediate payment of their bonus. They camped
in shantytowns along the Anacostia River until their numbers grew to
25,000. At one point, 20,000 veterans walked slowly up and down
Pennsylvania Avenue for three straight days protesting the government
decision not to pay their bonus. By late July, riots began after police
shot two of the marchers. Gen. Douglas MacArthur then led a machine-gun
squadron, troops with fixed bayonets and a number of tanks to destroy the
shantytowns and disperse the marchers with tear gas, injuring hundreds of
veterans in the process.

In 1944, the GI Bill of Rights was enacted. Veterans were supported by
providing money for education, low-interest mortgage loans and $20 a week
while looking for employment.

While some of these benefits are still available today, nearly 300,000
current veterans can be found homeless each night, and more than 500,000
veterans will experience homelessness sometime during the year.

Korean and Vietnam veterans received little of the support and recognition
that previous veterans received. Thirty years after being exposed to Agent
Orange in Vietnam, and suffering numerous medical problems, a neighbor of
mine finally began to receive compensation from our government's admission
that Agent Orange is toxic.

Because of situations like this, nearly three times the number of Vietnam
veterans died after coming home than died during the war.

Today, there are reports of U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan,
being secretly transferred from Andrews Air Force base, under the cover of
darkness, to military transport planes and dispersed out to military
hospitals across the country. Why? So that we do not see them.

Coffins of dead U.S. soldiers cannot be photographed returning home. Why?
So that we do not see them.

Is this the kind of support we want to give to our soldiers? Hiding them
from the public eye? Relegating them to the streets to fend for
themselves? Are we trying to hide something?

Is it easier to support the mythical, invisible image of a brave soldier
fighting for glory and freedom than it is to support the very real
limbless, psychologically damaged or lifeless person returning from Iraq?

Why are we increasing spending in Iraq to make more disabled veterans, and
then cutting spending to care for them when they come home by closing VA
hospitals and decreasing benefits?

Come on. We can do better than that.

If we really want to support our soldiers, let's demand proper medical
care and compensation when they come home. Let's make sure that every
soldier returning from duty in a war zone is evaluated for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) so that we can detect and treat the estimated 1 in
3 Iraq veterans who will have it.

Let's assure that all U.S. soldiers from the Gulf War, Afghanistan and
Iraq are tested for exposure to the wind- dispersed, depleted uranium (DU)
that is suspected to have caused numerous illnesses in more than 200,000
Gulf War veterans, and has caused and will continue to cause birth
defects, cancer and early deaths for decades to come.

Support our troops? Yeah, bring them home and help them heal.



Tim Pluta is a veteran 

[pjnews] Women's Preemptive Strike for Peace

[parallax]

http://www.codepink4peace.org/
 
CODEPINK:
WOMEN'S PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE FOR PEACE
  
We call on women around the world to rise up and oppose the war in Iraq. We 
call on mothers, grandmothers, sisters and daughters, on workers, students, 
teachers, healers, artists, writers, singers, poets, and every ordinary 
outraged woman willing to be outrageous for peace. 

Women have been the guardians of life- not because we are better or purer or 
more innately nurturing than men, but because the men have busied themselves 
making war. Because of our responsibility to the next generation, because of 
our own love for our families and communities and this country that we are a 
part of, we understand the love of a mother in Iraq for her children, and the 
driving desire of that child for life. 
 
Our leaders tell us we that we can easily afford hundreds of billions of 
dollars for this war. But in the United States of America, many of our elders 
who have worked hard all their lives now must choose whether to buy their 
prescription drugs, or food. Our children's education is eroded. The air they 
breathe and the water they drink are polluted. Vast numbers of women and 
children live in poverty. 
 
If we cannot afford health care, quality education and quality of life, how can 
we afford to squander our resources in attacking a country that is no proven 
immediate threat to us? We face real threats every day: the illness or ordinary 
accident that could plunge us into poverty, the violence on our own streets, 
the corporate corruption that can result in the loss of our jobs, our pensions, 
and our security. 
 
In Iraq today, a child with cancer cannot get pain relief or medication because 
of sanctions. Childhood diarrhea has again become a major killer. 500,000 
children have already died from inadequate health care, water and food supplies 
due to sanctions. How many more will die if bombs fall on Baghdad, or a ground 
war begins? 
 
We cannot morally consent to war while paths of peace and negotiation have not 
been pursued to their fullest. We who cherish children will not consent to 
their murder. Nor do we consent to the murder of their mothers, grandmothers, 
fathers, grandfathers, or to the deaths of our own sons and daughters in a war 
for oil. 
 
We love our country, but we will never wrap ourselves in red, white and blue. 
Instead, we announce a Code Pink alert: signifying extreme danger to all the 
values of nurturing, caring, and compassion that women and loving men have 
held. We choose pink, the color of roses, the beauty that like bread is food 
for life, the color of the dawn of a new era when cooperation and negotiation 
prevail over force. 
 
We call on all outraged women to join us in taking a stand, now. And we call 
upon our brothers to join with us and support us. These actions will be 
initiated by women, but not limited to women. Stand in the streets and 
marketplaces of your towns with banners and signs of dissent, and talk to your 
neighbors. Stand before your elected representatives: and if they will not 
listen, sit in their offices, refusing to leave until they do. Withdraw consent 
from the warmongers. Engage in outrageous acts of dissent. We encourage all 
actions, from public education and free speech to nonviolent civil disobedience 
that can disrupt the progress toward war.

[pjnews] Action: Assist Ramallah YMCA Project

[parallax]

Appeal for YMCA Ramallah Project(ACTION REQUESTED)
From: Sam Bahour [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

November 9, 2002 
Dear Friends, 

I write to you from Ramallah/Al-Bireh, Palestinian Authority in reference to a
special fund raising initiative for building a YMCA Youth and Sports Center in
Ramallah. As you are aware, we are facing one, if not the, most challenging
periods of our time. While some have turned their back to the development of
our community during these troubling times, many others have not. Your sincere
interest and support during this difficult period is what inspires me to make
this personal appeal. 

For several months now, I have closely worked with the East Jerusalem YMCA
staff member, Mr. Haytham Hammouri and his colleagues to find a way to make
this project a reality. During the past two months, Mr. Hammouri accompanied
two YMCA of the USA International Group executives to my office in Ramallah to
discuss with me the fundraising effort for this project. Witnessing firsthand
the senior-level commitment of the international section of the YMCA and the
dedication of the local YMCA staff to carry on in strategic humanitarian and
community development projects, despite our difficult conditions, has motivated
me to help as much as possible and, thus, I appeal to each and every one of you
for your support. 

No other segment of Palestinian society has suffered more than youth. Extreme
levels of violence, destitution and destruction have severely impeded
educational, recreational and economic opportunities in the West Bank, Gaza and
East Jerusalem. School attendance and non-formal educational opportunities have
dropped significantly. The intensity of the current situation breeds anger,
frustration and hopelessness. 

As a result, many young Palestinians often turn to extremist alternatives
rather than positive, community-based avenues of change. The urgent need to
create positive educational, recreational and economic opportunities is
particularly acute in a society where 47% of the population is under the age of
15. The following statistics convey the extent of the youth development
challenges in the West Bank and Gaza: 

* Over 70% of young Palestinians live below or at the poverty line. 

* Over 70% of the Palestinians killed, wounded or imprisoned since the current
Intifada started were between 14 and 30 years of age. 

* Over 25% of Palestinian youth never finish primary school. 

* Over 40% of Palestinian youth never finish high school. 

* 70% of all youth that complete high school and/or vocational training do not
have the technical or analytical skills required for the limited jobs currently
available in the Palestinian labor market. 

* Over 80% of Palestinian youth have no access to career information,
counseling and planning services. 

* 80% of women over the age of 15 do not participate in the labor force. 

* Over 50% of school dropouts between the ages of 15 and 25 are either
unemployed or significantly under-employed. 

* Over 80% of Palestinian youth have little or no access to public or private
sports and recreation facilities. The percentage is even lower for girls and
disabled youth.
* Less than 10% of Palestinian youth are involved in supervised after school
activities. The statistics are much worse for girls and disabled youth. 

* Most schools, youth centers and public infrastructure lack disabled access
facilities. 

* Over 4,000 Palestinian youth have sustained permanent disabilities since the
start of the current Intifada. 

After-school activities do not exist in most areas of the West Bank, Gaza and
East Jerusalem. YMCA research and evaluations studies have found that children
who are left unsupervised after school are more likely to engage in high-risk
activities that lead to violent behavior, early school dropout, unemployment
and dangerous health practices (such as smoking, drinking and drug addiction).
Children and teens that participate in supervised after school activities,
however, stay in school longer, receive better grades, obtain better jobs,
engage in fewer high-risk activities and volunteer more time to community
development initiatives. 

The YMCA Youth and Sports Center in Ramallah will provide vital youth education
and recreation services to at least 18,000 youth and families. The facility
will include a swimming pool, gymnasium, multi-purpose hall, locker rooms,
sports equipment and playground games, such as squash, basketball and tennis.
The recreation center will also serve disabled and at-risk youth from
communities of all the Ramallah District, especially Ramallah, Betunya and Al-
Bireh. The YMCA will also develop special sports, recreation, education and
counseling programs for girls and young women in the target communities. 

Detailed information on the projects, partners, and the track record of the
East Jerusalem YMCA may be found at: http://www.ej-
ymca.org/sport%20center.htm.
Also, a rendering of the facility may be viewed at:

[pjnews] Israeli soldiers receive treatment

[parallax]

http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/41749.html

What have I done! - a hundred soldiers treated for Intifada Syndrome
translated from Ma'ariv by TOI-staff

11/5/02

A special rehabilitation village has been set up to take care of former 
combat soldiers who suffer from a deep mental crisis, a hundred of whom are at 
present undergoing treatment. Some suffer from nightmares, and are unable to 
face up to operational failures and having harmed civilians. Veterans of elite 
units are being treated at the Izun rehabilitation village near Caesarea, by 
a staff including seven reserve officers. The project is supported by Orit 
Mofaz, wife of the new Defence Minister. The treatment is financed by the ex-
soldiers' parents. Today four new patients will be admitted, ex-members of 
Duvdevan [Special Forces unit carrying out arrests and assassinations while 
disguised as Arabs].

Exclusive - by Ethan Rabin

They joined the most elite of units, full of motivation. They served terms of 
three years and more, fought in the hardest battles of the initifada, but also 
had to face the civilian Palestinian population. Now that they had been 
discharged the difficulties are exposed, the personal problems and crises. 
Dozens of them went on backpacking trips to the Far East where they became drug 
addicted to Heroine, Cocaine and other hard drugs. Some tried to commit 
suicide. In face of this difficult situation, reserve colonel Omri Frish, 
former combat officer and a social worker by training, took the initiative of 
trying to save these backapcking soldiers. He and several other former 
officers had set up the Izun Rehabilitation Village near Caesarea. In fact, 
when we set up the village, we just knew that more and more of the young 
Israelis who go on backpaking trips to India, Thailand and other places are 
coming back in a condition of total collapse and are in urgent need of help. 
But when we took up the task of helping them, we realized that in the majority 
of cases the phenomenon is related to experiences of military service prior to 
their going abroad. So we decided to take up all cases of former combat 
soldiers in crisis, also those who had not gone first through the Far East. We 
made the new Rehabilitation Village known and were staggered by the number of 
calls we got, from ex-soldiers and especially parents - more than 900 so far. 
The parents told very painful stories of sons becoming drug addicts and trying 
to commit suicide. Many of them were veterans of the most prestigious elite 
units such as Sayeret Matkal, the Naval Commandos and Duchifat. One of the 
main issues arising in talks with the soldiers is the Intifada. The soldiers

burst out crying and accuse themselves of mistreating Palestinians and 
humiliating them. Now, after being discharged, the vision of what they had done 
is playing itself in their minds like a non-stop film. Suddenly the soldier, 
the tough fighter who had been nicknamed 'Rambo', goes to India. There he 
experiences another reality, a quiet and peaceful situation. When he comes back 
he realizes what he had done. He tries to escape from reality, to escape into 
drugs, and his life becomes a ruin says one of the doctors. It is difficult to 
categorize precisely the menta l damage caused to the soldiers. it is not 
exactly shell shock. It is not precisely a post- traumatic condition, either. 
It is just a very severe mental crisis. This situation is a real time bomb 
says a senior IDF officer. One of the main problems arising, especially in 
treating former members of elite units, is extreme anxiety about 
failure. These people are not taught to accept the possibility of failure. In 
these elite units they are told that failure is unacceptable, and th at a 90% 
success also counts as failure. When you are 18, 19 or 20 you can believe in 
such standards. Afterwards, they become more realistic - but that's too late. 
When you tell soldiers that failure is completely unacceptable and they 
nevertheless fail, they just break. Then they go into a mental crisis and get 
into drugs. The drugs help them to rearrange the reality.

One of the staff's main problems is the patients' strong feeling that it is 
illegitimate to break, to cry or ask for help. They were told that they are 
supermen, and supermen don't ask for help. Supermen can solve all problems by 
themselves. But they don't succeed to solve all the problems, and then they go 
around with an enormous guilt feeling, a feeling that they are worth nothing. 
S., a former paratrooper fighter who is under treatment for the past three 
months, said: We went into houses. We saw children and old people crying. We 
shot at their TV sets. At the time you feel no pity, you just have a job to do 
and you do it. But when afterwards you sit at home, you start realizing what 
you have done and it hurts you deeply. Since the village was opened, hundreds 
of parents asked to have their sons treated there.

So far, 120 people 

[pjnews] US $$ yielded UN vote against Iraq

[parallax]

see also:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1112-02.htm

A report to be released today predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to 
a human catastrophe with casualties as high as 250,000 within the first three 
months..

for the text of the report, see: http://www.medact.org/tbx/pages/sub.cfm?id=556

-

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/-02.htm

Published on Monday, November 11, 2002 by the Inter Press Service  
US Dollars Yielded Unanimous UN Vote Against Iraq  
by Thalif Deen 
  
UNITED NATIONS - Friday's unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council 
supporting the U.S. resolution on weapons inspections in Iraq was a 
demonstration of Washington's ability to wield its vast political and economic 
power, say observers. 

''Only a superpower like the United States could have pulled off a coup like 
this,'' an Asian diplomat told IPS. 

The unanimous 15-0 vote, he said, was obtained through considerable political 
and diplomatic pressure. The lobbying, he added, was not done at the United 
Nations, but in various capitals. 

Besides its five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, Britain, 
France, China and Russia - the Security Council also consists of 10 non-
permanent, rotating members who hold office for two years. 

France, China and Russia, in almost a single voice, said they decided to back 
the resolution because of assurances by the United States that it would return 
to the Security Council before launching a military attack on Iraq. The 
resolution, they argued, does not provide the United States with the automatic 
use of military force. 

But the 10 non-permanent members - Cameroon, Guinea, Mauritius, Bulgaria, 
Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Syria - voted under heavy 
diplomatic and economic pressure from the United States. 

Nine votes and no vetoes were the minimum needed to adopt the resolution. Of 
the five big powers, Britain had co-sponsored the U.S. resolution. In a worst-
case scenario, U.S. officials were expecting the other three permanent members -
 Russia, China and France - to abstain on the vote. 

That meant the votes of the 10 non-permanent members took on added 
significance. Of the 10, the two Western nations, Ireland and Norway, were 
expected to vote with the United States. 

Syria, a ''radical'' Arab nation listed as a ''terrorist state'' by the U.S. 
State Department, was expected to either vote against or abstain. 

So the arm-twisting was confined mostly to the remaining seven countries, who 
depend on the United States either for economic or military aid - or both. 

All these countries were seemingly aware of the fact that in 1990 the United 
States almost overnight cut about 70 million dollars in aid to Yemen 
immediately following its negative vote against a U.S. sponsored Security 
Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait. 

Last week, Mauritius' U.N. ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, was temporarily 
recalled by his government because he continued to convey the mistaken 
impression that his country had reservations about the U.S. resolution against 
Iraq. 

''The Yemen precedent remains a vivid institutional memory at the United 
Nations,'' Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Washington-based Institute for 
Policy Studies, told IPS. 

Bennis said that just after that 1990 vote, the U.S. envoy turned to the Yemeni 
ambassador and told him that his vote would be ''the most expensive 'no' vote 
you would ever cast''. The United States then promptly cut the entire 70 
million dollar U.S. aid budget to Yemen. 

The latest incarnation of that reality, Bennis said, came from the island 
nation of Mauritius, which joined the Security Council last year under U.S. 
sponsorship. 

The U.S. aid package to the impoverished country, authorised by the U.S. 
African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), demands that the aid 
recipient ''does not engage in activities contrary to U.S. national security or 
foreign policy interests''. 

Fear of being accused of acting contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests plays 
a role ''not only for Mauritius, but also for any country dependent on U.S. 
economic assistance'', added Bennis. 

Colombia, one of the world's leading producer of cocaine and an important 
supplier of heroin to the U.S. market, received about 380 million dollars in 
U.S. grants under the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 
(INCLE) programme this year. The proposed amount earmarked for 2003 is 439 
million dollars. 

Under the same programme, Mexico received about 10 million dollars last year 
and 12 million dollars this year. It also received 28.2 million dollars in U.S. 
Economic Support Funds (ESF). 

Guinea, another of the non-permanent members in the Security Council, received 
three million dollars in outright U.S. military grants last year and is 
expected to get 20.7 million dollars in development assistance next year. 

Cameroon is not only entitled to receive free surplus 

[pjnews] US's full-fledged PR War

[parallax]

This War Brought to You by Rendon Group
By Ian Urbina

Asia Times Online 
http://www.atimes.com

WASHINGTON, Nov 12, 2002 -- Word got around the department that I was a good 
Arabic translator who did a great Saddam imitation, recalls the Harvard grad 
student. Eventually, someone phoned me, asking if I wanted to help change the 
course of Iraq policy.

So twice a week, for US$3,000 a month, the Iraqi student says, under condition 
of anonymity, that he took a taxi from his campus apartment to a Boston-area 
recording studio rented by the Rendon Group, a DC-based public relations firm 
with close ties to the US government. His job: translate and dub spoofed Saddam 
Hussein speeches and tongue-in-cheek newscasts for broadcast throughout Iraq.

I never got a straight answer on whether the Iraqi resistance, the CIA or 
policy makers on the Hill were actually the ones calling the shots, says the 
student, but ultimately I realized that the guys doing spin were very well and 
completely cut loose. And that's how Baghdad's best-known opposition radio 
personality was born six years ago - during the Clinton administration. It was 
one of many disinformation schemes cooked up by the Rendon Group, which has 
worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations fighting the psy-op 
war in the Middle East. 

The point was to discredit Saddam, but the stuff was complete slapstick, the 
student says. We did skits where Saddam would get mixed up in his own lies, or 
where [Saddam's son] Qusay would stumble over his own delusions of grandeur. 
Transmissions were once a week from stations in northern Iraq and Kuwait. The 
only thing that was even remotely funny, says the student, were the mockeries 
of the royal guard and the government's clumsy attempts to deceive arms 
inspectors. 

The Saddam impersonator says he left Rendon not long ago out of frustration 
with what he calls the lack of expertise and oversight in the project. It was 
doubly frustrating, he says, because he despises Saddam, although he adds that 
he never has been involved with any political party or opposition group. No 
one in-house spoke a word of Arabic, he says. They thought I was mocking 
Saddam, but for all they knew I could have been lambasting the US government. 
The scripts, he adds, were often ill conceived. Who in Iraq is going to think 
it's funny to poke fun at Saddam's mustache, the student notes, when the vast 
majority of Iraqi men themselves have mustaches? 

There were other basic problems, too. Some of the announcers hired for the 
radio broadcasts, he says, were Egyptians and Jordanians, whose Arabic accents 
couldn't be understood by Iraqis. Friends in Baghdad said that the radio 
broadcasts were a complete mumble, the student says. One CIA agent familiar 
with the project calls the project's problem a lack of due diligence, and 
adds that the scripts were put together by 23-year-olds with connections to 
the Democratic National Committee. 

Despite the fumbling naivete of some of its operations, the Rendon Group is no 
novice in the field. For decades, when US bombs have dropped or foreign leaders 
have been felled, the public relations shop has been on the scene, just far 
enough to stay out of harm's way, but just close enough to keep the spin cycle 
going. 

As Franklin Foer reported in the New Republic, during the campaign against 
Panama's Manuel Noriega in 1989, Rendon's command post sat downtown in a high-
rise. In 1991, during the Gulf War, Rendon operatives hunkered down in Taif, 
Saudi Arabia, clocking billable hours on a Kuwaiti emir's dole. In Afghanistan, 
group founder John Rendon joined a 9:30am conference call every morning with 
top-level Pentagon officials to set the day's war message. Rendon operatives 
haven't missed a trip yet - Haiti, Kosovo, Zimbabwe, Colombia. 

The firm is tight-lipped, however, about its current projects. A spokesperson 
refuses to say whether Rendon is doing any work in preparation for the 
potential upcoming invasion of Iraq. But a current Rendon Arabic translator 
commented, All I can say is that nothing has changed - the work is still an 
expensive waste of time, mostly with taxpayer funds. However, Rendon may just 
prove to be one step ahead of the game. If Saddam is toppled, a Rendon creation 
is standing by to try to take his place. The Iraqi National Congress (INC), a 
disparate coalition of Iraqi dissidents touted by the US government as the best 
hope for an anti-Saddam coup, has gotten the go-ahead from US officials to arm 
and train a military force for invasion. The INC is one of the few names you'll 
hear if reporters bother to press government officials on what would come after 
Saddam. 

At the helm of the INC is Ahmed Chalabi, a US-trained mathematician who fled 
from Jordan in 1989 in the trunk of a car after the collapse of a bank he 
owned. He was subsequently charged and sentenced in absentia to 22 years in 
prison for embezzlement. Back home in Iraq, he's 

[pjnews] Homeland Security: You are a Suspect

[parallax]

November 14, 2002
New York Times

You Are a Suspect
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON _ If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before
passage, here is what will happen to you:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine
subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site
you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you
receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every
event you attend _ all these transactions and communications will go
into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized
grand database.

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial
sources, add every piece of information that government has about you
_ passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records,
judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the
., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera
surveillance _ and you have the supersnoop's dream: a Total
Information Awareness about every U.S. citizen.

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to
your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets
the unprecedented power he seeks.

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval
Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national
security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant
idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages,
and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in
Nicaragua.

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of
misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court
overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his
testimony. He famously asserted, The buck stops here, arguing that
the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for
fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even
more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the Information Awareness
Office in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology.
Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the
data-mining power to snoop on every public and private act of every
American.

Even the hastily passed . Patriot Act, which widened the scope
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy
laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret
eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on
individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.

He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping
and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such
necessary differentiation as bureaucratic stovepiping. And he has
been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300
million Americans.

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in
defense of each person's medical, financial and communications
privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of
oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious
blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping
theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the
president.

This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past
week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The
Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation,
but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of
Information Act.

Political awareness can overcome Total Information Awareness, the
combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar
overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information
and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips
and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The
Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.

The Latin motto over Poindexters new Pentagon office reads Scientia
Est Potentia _ knowledge is power. Exactly: the government's
infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. We're just as
concerned as the next person with protecting privacy, this brilliant
mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

[pjnews] Canada issues travel advisory for Arab citizens

[parallax]

[pjnews] Project Censored: Under-reported news stories

[parallax]

Project Censored Alert:
Under-reported news stories from http://www.projectcensored.org


Book Buyers Win Right to Privacy

In a victory for book buyers, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that
bookstores are not obligated to reveal customer records to government
agencies if it is determined that there is no compelling need for the
information.

Two years ago, Denver Police raided a trailer park and found signs of
illegal drug production as well as books on the topic.  The books were
traced to a Denver bookstore, The Tattered Cover. Joyce Meskis, owner of
the bookstore, was served with a search warrant for the store's sales
records in order to determine the identity of the customers who bought the
books in question.

Faced with this situation, Meskis went to court in order to protect the
right of privacy of her customers. After initially losing a lower court
ruling, she pursued the case to the state high court that, citing the First
Amendment right of an individual to purchase whatever books he or she
wishes to, without fear of government intrusion, overruled the lower
court's decision.

The American Booksellers foundation has reported an increase in government
subpoenas from bookstores since special prosecutor Kenneth Starr requested
records of Monica Lewinsky's book purchases.  The Colorado decision, while
not binding outside of the state, remains relevant in the debate over more
recent legislation such as the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to obtain
information about book purchases and library loans.

Synopsis: Michael Kaufmann
Source: Censorship News, Spring 2002, Tattered Cover Wins, By


Elizabeth Dole's Anti-Labor Stance at Red Cross

With primary winner Elizabeth Dole defeating Democratic nominee Erskine
Bowles in the race to fill the senate seat vacated by Jesse Helms, North
Carolina has elected an administrator with a long track record of hostility
toward workers.

During the 1990's Dole headed the worst hostility to employee organizing in
American Red Cross history. From the years spanning 1994 to 1996, the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found 77 unfair labor practice
charges against the organization. These included the firing of pro-union
employees to bad-faith bargaining. In the mid-'90s, the Red Cross even
tried to train it's clerical staff and truck drivers to handle the drawing
and processing of blood, a job for highly skilled lab technicians. In 1997,
the AFL-CIO Executive Council said, The Red Cross is acting more like a
ruthless Wall Street firm than a time-honored national charity.

With sub-contracting work to outside help, threatening to pay more to
employees who are not part of the union, and forcing nurses to drive and
unload the blood mobiles themselves, with Dole winning in November, the
nation can now look forward to six years of a senator from North Carolina
that favors big business over its workers.

Synopsis: Sarah Anderson
Source: In These Times, 10/14/02, Dole Drums: Liddy's no Lover of Labor,
By Charles Pekow


AFL-CIO Backs Lawsuits against Enron and WorldCom

Earlier this year, the AFL-CIO supported a victorious lawsuit against Enron
on behalf of terminated employees.  Former Enron workers won $34 million in
severance pay during the company's bankruptcy proceedings.  In the wake of
this success AFL-CIO President John Sweeney vowed a similar suit against
WorldCom.  In September, WorldCom decided to have its bankruptcy court
make full severance payments to its workers.

These lawsuits are indicative of growing public support for the labor
movement.  The AFL-CIO has spearheaded a campaign to educate the public on
labor issues and enact pro labor legislation.  A July poll by the Gallup
organization found that 38% of Americans consider big business to be the
'biggest threat to the future of the country.'  This is the highest number
in the poll's 48 years.  In an AFL-CIO survey Peter Hart found that 39% of
Americans have a negative view of corporations, up from last years total of
25%.  Hart also found that 50% of non-union workers would vote in favor of
union representation in their workplace, up from 42% last year.

Ron Blackwell, Corporate Affairs Director of the AFL-CIO, spoke out against
the rising trend of corporations having no accountability for their
actions.  He said that executives should be held to the regulations
regarding stock trading as employees and should keep their stock as long as
they are with the company.  He also called for restoring the Glass-Steagall
Act of the FDR's New Deal, which separates the different sectors of the
financial services industry.

Synopsis: Josh Sisco
Source: In These Times, Time and Tide, 10/14/02, by David Moberg


Project Censored
Sonoma State University
1801 East Cotati Ave.
Rohnert Park, CA 94928

Tax deductable donations accepted
http://www.projectcensored.org/contacts/donor.htm

[pjnews] 1/2 Controlling NATO: the Agenda in Prague

[parallax]

[excerpted]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0211/S00093.htm

Controlling NATO: The Real Agenda At Prague 
By Selwyn Manning – Scoop Deputy Editor

Between November 21-23 NATO member countries will descend on the Czech 
Republic’s capital city Prague. There, heads of state, presidents and prime 
ministers will discuss issues such as the “NATO response force proposal” – a 
policy central to the United State’s “National Security Strategy”. NATO plans 
to draw into its fold Eastern European states vying for entry to the European 
Union. It is a consolidation of a New European Pact, a forging of a new 
military and economic order.

During the Cold War years the USA dominated NATO strategy. Post Cold-War NATO 
shaped into a more isolated friend of US foreign policy. But the Bush 
Administration is positioning to again dominate NATO. A necessity largely due 
to Germany, France, Russia respectively refusing to become lapdogs to Bush 
diplomacy as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has become. For Bush, NATO is 
the vehicle that will accommodate a military coalition that will “Partner” the 
USA in its imminent war against Iraq, Libya and a host of other “Axis” 
countries.

European diplomacy has clearly often been the nucleus of destruction. Is it now 
the only buffer left between peace-comparative and Manifest Destiny – the dream 
of Fortress USA to express its institutions around the world?

The USA’s new foreign policy strategy embraces what diplomats call “pre-emptive 
defence” – ie; striking opponents before they can strike you. But will European 
leaders risk subscribing to the USA’s global dominance framework? See also: 
Imperial PAX Americana 

This question is what marks the Prague summit. The short to medium term future 
of millions of people will ride on the outcome. Should European rhetoric be 
laced with appeasement, accommodating the Bush Administration’s grand-plan, 
innocent people, worldwide, will choke from ashes in their mouths.


NATO in Transformation

Officially the Prague Summit is all about NATO gathering European states into 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization incognito with the EU’s push to 
consolidate and become one. The European Union has been paving the way to allow 
entry for relatively new former eastern block economies into the Union. 

But the EU's another story. Clearly NATO’s push is more to do with the United 
States massing an army of awesome proportions. The purpose: to counter a 
perceived Islamic-Arab Global threat, and to rustle up the means to enforce 
western alliance control of Eurasian oil and mineral wealth, and to advance 
United States military dominion over more than half the globe’s surface.

The United States has long coveted control over the former Soviet republics of 
Central Asia. As Gore Vidal wrote recently: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan 
and Kyrgyzstan are all 'of importance from the standpoint of security and 
historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and most 
powerful neighbours - Russia, Turkey and Iran”. For more see… The Enemy 
Within . 

This is just one factor in a mass of complex diplomatic considerations and 
networks that will be partially tied down in Prague.

Let’s consider a series of transitional points

NATO is transforming from a counter-balance to post WWII Warsaw Pact ideology, 
to a military wing progressor of capitalist-western globalisation. Intelligence 
reports from European states reveal a co-ordinated positioning of economic 
sectors, European states, detailing perceived threats to reforms driving 
economic and social progress.

Intelligence agencies are being co-ordinated from the hub of an integrated 
alliance – centrally organised by the CIA. Feeding into the intelligence mix 
are the old practitioners: including the MI5, KGB, Mossad, Direction de la 
Surveillance du Territoire [French DST].

This western intelligence alliance is seen active daily, in foreign affairs 
reports, warnings to citizens to defer travelling to various parts of the 
world. Secret reports to intelligence services of friendly nations on 
operatives and individuals who may be residing within their regions. The USA is 
central to the distribution of the information. This was seen post-the Bali 
bombing and the subsequent fallout of who was told what, when and if.

Backed by this mix of intel, NATO would play the dominating role in global 
enforcement.

---

The NATO member countries are: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, 
Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, The united States of America.

Candidate nations are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia.



So does NATO conjure up security and reassurance for Europe? Recent operations 
have their critics: European writer Alexander Zaitchik eloquently writes: NATO 

[pjnews] Project Censored Under-reported News Stories

[parallax]

PROJECT CENSORED ALERTS:

Have You Had Your Plastic Today?

Research scientists found breast cancer cells growing rapidly in petri
dishes. They contacted the manufacturer of the petri dishes and were able
to trace the growth stimulant to a change in the petri plastic formula.  A
plasticizer, chemically known as phthalates also had been added.
Plasticizers are used as a softening agent in plastic formulas.

They alter growth hormones of adults and humans, and have been termed
endocrine disruptors.  Besides sticking to our thyroid hormones in cells,
they are found to alter the reproductive system's program for development.
Many girls are now experiencing precocious puberty, growing breasts and
pubic hair as early as 6-7.  Boys are being born with micro-penises and
undescended testicles.  Plasticizers are known carcinogens and mimic
hormones. They are essentially fertilizer for breast and prostrate cancer.

The high level of phthalates in our bodies amazes government scientists.
But why should it?  We buy many of our food and beverages in plastic.
Bottled drinking water uptakes plasticizers from the containers, especially
when stored in a warm environment.

Synopsis: Leanna Del Zompo
Source: The Eel River Reporter, Spring 2002, Have You Had Your Plastic
Today? By Nancy Peregrine


PBS Shuts Out Independent Producers

Lately the Public Broadcast System has been refusing to air films or
documentaries that were made by independent producers. PBS is supposed to
compensate for the inadequacies of advertiser-driven network programming by
providing an alternative that expresses diversity and excellence involving
creative risks, and which addresses the needs of the ignored and
underserved audiences.

While independents account for nearly 20% of all national programming,
almost all their productions must be channeled through the same three
presenting stations. Author/filmmaker B.J. Bullert reports, even if they
are accomplished filmmakers; PBS gatekeepers do not consider public
interest advocates to be journalists. They often label their work
propaganda and assume their reporting is biased. Deadly Deception is an
expose of radiation poisoning of workers and residents by General Electric
nuclear weapons production that won the 1991 Academy Award for Best
Documentary Short. PBS turned it down.

PBS however, had no problem airing several documentaries underwritten by
foundations promoting a conservative political agenda. Robert Richters film
The Money Lenders, is about the impact of the World Bank and the IMF on
developing countries. PBS turned it down and said there is a perception of
bias in favor of poor people who claim to be adversely affected. Danny
Schechters Falun film, Gongs Challenge to China, looks behind the story
of the Chinese government's repression of a spiritual practice that claims
10 million followers worldwide. The crackdown has resulted in 50,000
arrests, pervasive torture, 120 deaths, the burning of eight million books,
and widespread world media coverage. PBS once again declined to air the
film.

PBS has turned away countless independent filmmakers with the explanation
that their work is too controversial, it comes from the wrong sources, or
their production quality does not meet PBS standards.

Synopsis: Casey Stenlund
Source: Media File, Summer 2002, Vol.21, No. 3, PBS Shuts Out Independent
Producers, by Jerold M. Starr


Uruguay Hit by Economic Crisis

Uruguay seems to be plunging into a deep social and political crisis
parallel to that of its larger neighbor Argentina.  On Aug. 25, Uruguayan
Independence day, 100,000 marched in Montevideo to protest the government's
economic austerity policy and capitulation to the demands of outside
financing.

The government decided to allow the local currency to float on June 20
causing the people to lose 25 to 30 percent of their purchasing power.  The
currency has lost 50 percent of its value.  However, exports still have
fallen by 40 percent.

On July 30, the government declared a bank holiday to stop the drain on
banking reserves.  Since January, Uruguay's currency reserves have shrunk
by 80 percent and bank deposits by 45 percent.  The unemployed now number
250,000 in a country whose total population is only 3.3 million.  50
percent of new babies are born into families living below the poverty level.

This economic disaster spurred a general strike on Aug. 7, shutting down
the banks, government offices, and education.  Students at the national
university had started an unlimited strike against the government's
neoliberal policy and its acceptance of the IMF demand for slashing public
spending and liquidating public services.

The eruption of economic turmoil forced the United States to offer a loan
in the amount of $1.5 billion dollars.  The loan was not sufficient enough
nor was it intended to solve economic difficulties but to keep the banks
from having a complete collapse.

Synopsis: Omar Malik
Source: Socialist Action, Sept. 2002, Uruguay Hit by 

[pjnews] UN Resolution: Road to War?

[parallax]

see also:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1119-01.htm
Annan Says Iraqi No-Fly Zone Firing No Violation


forwarded...

November 19, 2002

Dear Friends, 

It is an interesting time, to say the least. War against Iraq is
literally around the corner, and the build up is on going despite what
the President says about respecting the UN time tables. War in
Afghanistan is on going, but for the most part it is happening outside
of public knowledge.

It is an interesting time when convicted Iran Contra criminal John M.
Poindexter can crawl back into the Pentagon without much fan fare. He is
the head of the Office of Information Awareness. This innocuous sounding
little office is charged with developing new surveillance technologies
for the Government. A task that worries civil libertarians because it
could result in a surveillance state. We are worried about that, but
we are even more worried about Poindexter's public image overhaul. Is
the public's memory really that short? Poindexter was convicted of
conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying
evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. He testified to Congress that he
made a very deliberate decision not to ask the President about the
diversion of missile profits to the Contras in order to provide some
future deniability for the President if it ever leaked out. 

Is this the man we want to be in charge of surveillance and personal
information collection? His office has developed a system that can
provide investigators with instant access to a huge volume of personal
information, including mail and calling records, credit card, and
banking transactions and travel documents. all without a search
record. For more on Poindexter and the Office of Information Awareness
visit http://www.hereinreality.com/bigbrother.html#ref 

Poindexter is not the only convicted (although- to be fair- his
conviction was overturned in 1990) Iran Contra alum in the Bush II White
House. Visit http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html for the
complete list. 

But enough about Poindexter. In this issue of the ATRC Update, we have
articles from Bill and Michelle about the official sanctioning of the
war in Iraq- in the Congress and the United Nations. We also include
some of our most recent media hits and new resources that help
advocates, activists and academics get a handle on what's going on. 

Warm Regards and an Early but Heartfelt Happy Thanksgiving,
Bill Hartung
Michelle Ciarrocca
Meghan Towers
Frida Berrigan

---

THE LEGAL ROAD TO WAR? UN SECURITY RESOLUTION 1441
By Michelle Ciarrocca

With Iraq's acceptance of UN Security Resolution 1441, the inspectors
are back in Iraq after a 4-year hiatus. Hans Blix, Chief of the UN
inspections, and his team and inspectors for the nuclear program arrived
in Baghdad on November 18th. They are hunting for Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), and are scheduled to report back to the Security
Council with their findings by January 27, 2003. 

However, as Ian Williams noted in a recent commentary piece for Foreign
Policy In Focus, the UN resolution may simply be an alternative 'legal'
road to war rather than an alternative to war itself.

Mohammed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), however, was a bit more optimistic about the UN
resolution and resumption of inspections saying, It's an opportunity to
cough up whatever they have left of weapons of mass destruction. I
think this will be a beginning for a path for Iraq to go back into being
a full-fledged member of the international community, towards suspension
of sanctions, towards a comprehensive settlement. This is an
opportunity. It is an alternative to the use of force. 

Our Kind of Resolution
The Bush administration described the nuclear reduction treaty signed
by the U.S. and Russia this summer as our kind of treaty, because it
gives the White House and the Pentagon room to pursue nuclear weapons
research and development. The UN resolution on Iraq can be seen in the
same light. 

Passed unanimously, the resolution gives UN weapons inspectors
unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to anyone and
anywhere in Iraq that their search for weapons of mass destruction might
lead them. The resolution grants UN inspectors much more authority than
they had last time. They have unfettered access to the Presidential
Palaces; the power to deploy UN security guards; the right to declare
exclusion zones to freeze movement into and out of inspection sites;
and more. Saddam Hussein was given seven days to confirm his intention
to comply -- which he did. Any breach of the resolution will be reported
to the Security Council and result in serious consequences.

The first test of Iraq's intent to comply will be in the next few
weeks. Under the terms of the UN resolution, Iraq has until December 8th
to hand over a comprehensive list of weapons sites, which will be
checked and compared to a list of more 

[pjnews] Are you a conscientious objector?

[parallax]

ARE YOU A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR?

What to do before the draft is reinstated

·   Educate yourself about conscientious objection to war.  Generally,
conscientious objection (CO) is sincere conviction, motivated by conscience,
that forbids someone from participation in war.  This definition may include
people of all ages and both genders.  Military Service Act and government
regulations recognize two types of Cos.  A Conscientious Objector to all Forms
of Military Service is someone who by reason of religious, ethical, or moral
belief, are “conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form”. 
They are exempt from military service and if called up, may perform alternative
service as civilians.  Non-combatant conscientious objectors are persons
who, by reason of religious, ethical or moral belief are conscientiously 
opposed to
killing in war in any form, but who do not object to performing noncombatant
duties in the armed services.  These people are reassigned to noncombatant
duties if called up. 

·   Take a look at your beliefs.  Many draft counselors are trained to help
people examine their beliefs and values within the context of their religious
and/or moral upbringing.  Talking to a draft counselor may help you to clarify
your beliefs about participation in war.

·   Create a paper trail.  If you do believe you are a CO, you need to
start now to create documentation.  Don’t wait until the draft is reinstated or 
until
you are called up.  Start now to gather letters from others who know you and
your beliefs regarding conscientious objection.  Both MALES and FEMALES need to
do this.  There is serious talk that the next draft may need to include women.

·   If you haven’t registered yet you should know that some men don’t. 
There are penalties, such as denial of federal student land and grants, but
there are also some non-governmental loans and grants available only to those
who do not register.  If you choose to register, you cannot do so as a CO
(declaration comes at the time of call up), but what you can do is write
conscientious objector across your application, make a copy of the application,
seal it in an envelope and mail it to yourself.  Don’t open it.  The Selective
Service doesn’t keep the paper application you send them and won’t write it on
the card, but you will have your own copy for documentation.

·   If you’re in the military, ROTC or deferred entry and it is not how you
were led to believe it would be or you have had a change in beliefs, you can
get help from the GI Rights Hotline 800-394-9544.  The service is free and the
call is confidential.

·   Are you a Conscientious Objector to paying for war?  These are people
whose conscience forbids them to pay the military portion of their taxes
because of ethical, moral and religious beliefs.  Many people choose to live
below taxable levels, others refuse to pay the portion of their taxes that
supports the military.  There is legislation pending that would allow for this
money to be put in a Peace Tax Fund.  Again educate yourself and take a look at
your beliefs.

·   Inform others and help support difficult decisions.


For More Information Contact:

Center on Conscience  War
800-379-2679
http://www.nisbco.org

Central Committee on Conscientious Objection
888-236-2226
http://www.objector.org

National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
888-732-2382
http://www.peacetax.com

[pjnews] First Military Resister of Iraq War

[parallax]

To hear an interview we conducted with the attorney representing Wilfredo 
Torres, see: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/peacewatch/peace20021122.html

Scott


fwd...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The First Military Resister in 2002

 During 1990-91's US military build-up in the Gulf, more
 than 13,000 US soldiers refused to serve or went AWOL.
 Some were court-martialed and went to jail, others just
 disappeared -- as George W. Bush did for over a year
 when his unit was called up to active duty in the
 1960s.

 Last week, the first public resister of the new Gulf
 War stepped forward, US Army Private Wilfredo Torres
 from Rochester New York.

 Our support goes out to Mr. Torres, a man of tremendous
 courage and moral fiber. We need to spread the word
 about such acts of resistance to the horror throughout
 the military bases in our areas.


http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/200211/PEN20021112a.html

AWOL GI Refuses Service in 'Gulf War II'
By Jim Burns
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
November 12, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Army Private Wilfredo Torres stepped forward Monday to say 
he was absent without leave for nearly a year because he wanted no part of a 
U.S. invasion of Iraq. The announcement from Torres, a 19-year-old from 
Rochester, N.Y., came on Veteran's Day and just three days after the United 
Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of American 
force to disarm Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Torres surrendered Monday afternoon to U.S. military police at Fort Myer, 
Virginia, was incarcerated overnight on an AWOL charge and was to be 
transferred to Fort Knox, Ky., Tuesday morning, according to his attorney Tod 
Ensign, who is also the director of a veterans' rights advocacy group called 
Citizen Soldier.

Torres was participating in basic training at Fort Benning, Ga., when he left 
without permission shortly after Thanksgiving last year. Monday, he told 
CNSNews.com he is ready to accept the consequences for his actions even if it 
means a dishonorable discharge from the Army.

I am returning to the military today so my case can be resolved. If I am 
punished, then I am ready, he said.

Since I left Fort Benning, Georgia, last November, I thought about our 
country's foreign policy and my potential role as a soldier. I have decided 
that it will be wrong for our country to attack Iraq on its own, without 
working as part of the U.N., said Torres.

Even after Friday's unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council, authorizing 
the use of force against Iraq, Torres said he is still convinced the United 
States wants to invade Iraq on its own.

I'm no expert, but I think that such an attack will undermine the U.N. and 
affect America's standing in this world, Torres said.

If we do [attack], I won't be going with them, he added.

While turning himself in on Veterans Day, Torres denied he meant any disrespect 
to military veterans. I have the greatest respect for them, but from what I 
have read lately, our government has not done a good job of caring for Gulf War 
and Vietnam Vets, he said.

Torres said he realizes he could be court-martialed or receive a dishonorable 
discharge but those are chances he is willing to take. 

Ensign and other activists are already labeling any military action against 
Iraq, Gulf War II. Then-President George H.W. Bush launched the first Persian 
Gulf War in 1991 to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Now, the former president's 
son is America's commander-in-chief.

If the war goes ahead and my own reading is that [President George W.] Bush 
thinks he can go ahead without any further need for a further U.N resolution, I 
think we will hear from dozens and even hundreds of young people, said 
Ensign. I've been getting calls already from reservists who are asking about 
their options.

I think this movement will grow, if [Bush] goes ahead with the war there, he 
said.

Fort Knox, Ky., is the Army's main facility for AWOL GIs.

A dishonorable discharge, according to Ensign, could bar Torres from future 
Army and other veterans' benefits. 

According to the Uniform Code For Military Justice, if a soldier goes AWOL for 
30 days, the government changes the status to desertion. Both are violations 
under the code.

When the status is changed to desertion, according to the code, the military 
contacts family members and issues an arrest warrant to all of the law 
enforcement agencies in the United States. If police then stop the individual, 
he/she will be arrested and returned to military control. 

An AWOL soldier, under article 86 of the Uniform Code For Military Justice, 
faces a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay 
and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for 18 months. 

Article 85 of the code, dealing with desertion, establishes that the maximum 
punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 
and confinement at hard labor for three years. In times of war, the 

[pjnews] 1/2 First Thanksgiving: Lies My Teacher Told Me

[parallax]

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE FIRST THANKSGIVING 
by James W. Loewen

[Jim Loewen teaches sociology at the University of Vermont- Burlington, and 
is the author of Lies My Teacher Told Me - Everything Your American History 
Textbook Got Wrong.]

Over the last few years, I have asked hundreds of college students, When was 
the country we now know as the United States first settled?

That is a generous way of putting the question. Surely we now know as 
implies that the original settlement happened before the United States. I had 
hoped that students would suggest 30,000 BC, or some other pre-Columbian 
date. They did not. Their consensus answer was 1620.

Part of the the problem is the word settle. Settlers were white. Indians 
did not settle. Nor are students the only people misled by settle. One 
recent Thanksgiving weekend, I listened as a guide at the Statue of Liberty 
told about European immigrants populating a wild East Coast. As we shall 
see, however, if Indians had not already settled New England, Europeans would 
have had a much tougher job of it.

Starting with the Pilgrims not only leaves out the Indians, but also the 
Spanish. In the summer of 1526 five hundred Spaniards and one hundred black 
slaves founded a town near the mouth of the Pedee River in what is now South 
Carolina. Disease and disputes with nearby Indians caused many deaths. 
Finally, in November the slaves rebelled, killed some of their masters, and 
escaped to the the Indians. By now only 150 Spaniards survived, and they 
evacuated back to Haiti. The ex-slaves remained behind. So the first 
non-Native settlers in the country we now know as the United States were 
Africans.

The Spanish continued their settling in 1565, when they massacred a 
settlement of French Protestants at St. Augustine, Florida, and replaced it 
with their own fort. Some Spanish were pilgrims, seeking regions new to them 
to secure religious liberty: these were Spanish Jews, who settled in New 
Mexico in the late 1500s. Few Americans know that one third of the United 
States, from San Francisco to Arkansas to Natchez to Floirda, has been 
Spanish longer than it has been American. Moreover, Spanish culture left an 
indelible impact on the West. The Spanish introduced horses, cattle, sheep, 
pigs, and the basic elements of cowboy culture, including its vocabulary: 
mustang, bronco, rodeo, lariat, and so on.

Beginnning with 1620 also omits the Dutch, who were living in what is now 
Albany by 1614. Indeed, 1620 is not even the date of the first permanent 
British settlement, for in 1607, the London Company sent settlers to 
Jamestown, Virginia. No matter. The mythic origin of the country we now know 
as the United States is at Plymouth Rock, and the year is 1620. My students 
are not at fault. The myth is what their testbooks and their culture have 
offered them. I examined how twelve textbooks used in high school American 
history classes teach Thanksgiving. Here is the version in one high school 
history book, THE AMERICAN TRADITION:

After some exploring, the Pilgrims chose the land around Plymouth Harbor for 
their settlement. Unfortunately, they had arrived in December and were not 
prepared for the New England winter. However, they were aided by freindly 
Indians, who gave them food and showed them how to grow corn. When warm 
weather came, the colonists planted, fished, hunted, and prepared themselves 
for the next winter. After harvesting their first crop, they and their Indian 
friends celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

My students also learned that the Pilgrims were persecuted in England for 
their religion, so they moved to Holland. They sailed on the Mayflower to 
America and wrote the Mayflower Compact. Times were rough, until they met 
Squanto. He taught them how to put fish in each corn hill, so they had a 
bountiful harvest.

But when I ask them about the plague, they stare back at me. What plague? 
The Black Plague? No, that was three centuries earlier, I sigh.

THE WONDERFUL PLAGUE AMONG THE SAVAGES

The Black Plague does provide a useful introduction, however. Black (or 
bubonic) Plague was undoubtedly the worst disaster that has ever befallen 
mankind. In three years it killed 30 percent of the population of Europe. 
Catastrophic as it was, the disease itself comprised only part of the horror. 
Thinking the day of judgment was imminent, farmers failed to plant crops. 
Many people gave themselves over to alcohol. Civil and economic disruption 
may have caused as much death as the disease itself.

For a variety of reasons --- their probable migration through cleansing 
Alaskan ice fields, better hygiene, no livestock or livestock-borne microbes 
--- Americans were in Howard Simpson's assessment a remarkable healthy race 
before Columbus. Ironically, their very health now proved their undoing, for 
they had built up no resistance, genetically or through childhood diseases, 
to the microbes Europeans and Africans now brought them. In 1617, just 

[pjnews] Myths in Iraq Media Coverage

[parallax]

Fairness  Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

ACTION ALERT:
Common Myths in Iraq Coverage

November 27, 2002 

An issue as serious as the Iraq crisis deserves the highest possible
degree of accuracy from the press.  U.S. media coverage, however, is
marked by frequent misstatements and distortions of reality-- some of
which have been made repeatedly, even after being pointed out by critics.

Here are a few examples of commonly repeated errors:

1. But as U.N. weapons inspectors prepare to return to Iraq for the first
time since Saddam kicked them out in 1998, the U.S. faces a delicate
balancing act: transforming the international consensus for disarmament
into a consensus for war. --Randall Pinkston, CBS Evening News (11/9/02).

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N.
weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were kicked out or
expelled (http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html ).  The
inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that
a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent.  This was reported accurately
throughout the U.S. press at the time: Butler ordered his inspectors to
evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night
(Washington Post, 12/18/98).


2. The last weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq nearly four years
ago. Baghdad charged that there were spies on the team, and the United
States complained that Iraq was using the accusation as an excuse to
obstruct the inspectors.  After the team withdrew, the U.S. and Britain
waged a four-day bombing campaign. --L.A. Times (11/19/02)

Treating the use of the U.N. weapons inspection team for espionage as a
mere Iraqi allegation might be referred to as Saddam Says reporting.  In
fact, reports of the misuse of the inspectors for spying were made in
early 1999 by some of the leading U.S. newspapers, sourced to U.S. and
U.N. officials (FAIR Action Alert, 9/24/02;
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html ).  These papers reported
as fact that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United
Nations arms inspectors (New York Times, 1/7/99) in order to eavesdrop
on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency
(Washington Post, 3/2/99) as part of an ambitious spying operation
designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement
of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (Boston Globe, 1/6/99).
 

3. Many [in Iraq], of course, are bitter over the 12-year-long
U.S.-supported embargo, which Baghdad claims has led to thousands of
infants and elderly people dying from preventable diseases. --Time
(11/25/02)

The topic of sanctions is also often covered in a Saddam Says fashion. 
In fact, there are detailed reports on the deadly effects of sanctions
that come from respected international health organizations and public
health experts, not from the Iraqi government.  For example, UNICEF
published a report in August 1999 that found that sanctions against Iraq
had contributed to the deaths of 500,000 children under five.  Richard
Garfield, a public health specialist at Columbia University, estimates
that 350,000 children have died as a result of sanctions and the lingering
effects of the 1991 Gulf War (The Nation, 12/6/01;
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011203s=cortright ).  To describe
a death toll in this range as thousands is like saying that dozens of
people died in the World Trade Center attacks.
 

4. The Pentagon also points out, the Bush administration also points out
very, very strongly, that the Iraqi regime itself is to blame for all of
these problems.  If they simply complied with U.N. Security Council
resolutions and disarm, there would be no sanctions, there would be no
problem getting medical supplies, doctor, pediatricians, to all parts of
Iraq. --Wolf Blitzer, CNN (11/7/02)

It's not at all clear that sanctions against Iraq would automatically be
lifted if the country disarmed; President George Bush the elder declared
in 1991, shortly after the sanctions were imposed, My view is we don't
want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.  His
secretary of state James Baker concurred: We are not interested in seeing
a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.

President Clinton made a point of saying that his policy toward Iraq was
exactly the same as his predecessor's.  His secretary of state Madeleine
Albright stated in her first major foreign policy address in 1997: We do
not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its
obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be
lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its
peaceful intentions And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam
Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful. (See Institute for Public
Accuracy, 11/13/98; http://www.accuracy.org/iraq.htm . )


ACTION: When you see these mistakes being repeated, please contact the
media 

[pjnews] They Came for the Muslims...

[parallax]

They came for the Muslims, and I Didn't Speak Up 
Forum Column (from the Daily Journal, 11/20/02) 
By Stephen Rohde 

Author's Note: The USA Patriot Act became law a little over one year ago. 

First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Muslim.

Then they came for the immigrants, detaining them indefinitely solely on the
certification of the attorney general, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
an immigrant. 

Then they came to eavesdrop on suspects consulting with their attorneys, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a suspect. 

Then they came to prosecute non citizens before secret military commissions,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a noncitizen. 

Then they came to enter homes and offices for unannounced, sneak and peak
searches, and I didn't speak up because I had nothing to hide. 

Then they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration and
surveillance of domestic religious and political groups, and I didn't speak up
because I no longer participated in any groups. 

Then they came to arrest American citizens and hold them indefinitely without
any charges and without access to lawyers, and I didn't speak up because I
would never be arrested. 

Then they came to institute TIPS Terrorism Information and Prevention System
recruiting citizens to spy on other citizens and I didn't speak up because I
was afraid. 

Then they came for anyone who objected to government policy because it only
aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies, and I didn't
speak up because I didn't speak up. 

Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up. 


The March For Justice
P.O. Box 249163
Coral Gables, FL 33124
305-673-4645
Fax. 305-673-1452
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.marchforjustice.com

[pjnews] Unilateral Power- By Any Other Name

[parallax]

UNILATERAL POWER -- BY ANY OTHER NAME
By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate

 Ever since the U.N. Security Council adopted its resolution about Iraq
a couple of weeks ago, American politicians and journalists have been
hailing the unanimous vote as a huge victory for international cooperation
instead of unilateral action.

 New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was close to ecstatic. For a
brief, shining moment last Friday, he wrote, the world didn't seem like
such a crazy place. The United Nations had proven its worth -- by proving
its value to Washington. Among the benefits: The Bush team discovered that
the best way to legitimize its overwhelming might -- in a war of choice --
was not by simply imposing it, but by channeling it through the U.N.

 But if the United Nations, serving as a conduit of American power, is
now worthwhile because it offers the best way for the United States to
legitimize its overwhelming might, how different is that from
unilateralism?

 Behind all the media euphemisms and diplomat-speak, a cold hard
reality about Resolution 1441 is already history: The resolution was
fashioned to provide important fig leaves for domestic politics and foreign
governments. President Bush and Britain's Tony Blair needed U.N. cover for
the war that they're so eager to launch.

 To get the Good War-Making Seal of Approval from the United Nations,
the Bush administration handed out major plums while flexing Uncle Sam's
muscles. You wouldn't know key pertinent facts from the drooling coverage
that has saturated American news outlets.

 Backroom deals with France and Russia regarding oil contracts in a
postwar Iraq were a big part of the picture, Phyllis Bennis writes in The
Nation's latest issue. And the impoverished nation of Mauritius emerged as
the latest poster child for U.S. pressure at the U.N. The ambassador,
Jagdish Koonjul, was recalled by his government for failing to support the
original U.S. draft resolution on Iraq. Why? Because Mauritius receives
significant U.S. aid, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act requires
that a recipient of U.S. assistance 'does not engage in activities that
undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.'

 The Mauritius episode tracked with broader patterns. InterPress
Service reported that nations on the Security Council voted under heavy
diplomatic and economic pressure from the United States. As recipients of
aid from Washington, non-permanent members of the Council were seemingly
aware of the fact that in 1990 the United States almost overnight cut about
$70 million in aid to Yemen immediately following its negative vote against
a U.S.-sponsored Security Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from
Kuwait.

 In the British magazine The New Statesman, author John Pilger has
recalled some sordid details of that pre-Gulf-War object lesson in
superpower payback. Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to
attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: 'That
was the most expensive No vote you ever cast.' Within three days, a U.S.
aid program of $70 million to one of the world's poorest countries was
stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and
800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia.

 Back then, Yemen was not the only impoverished country to feel the
fury of an imperial democracy scorned. In Pilger's words: When the United
States sought another resolution to blockade Iraq, two new members of the
Security Council were duly coerced. Ecuador was warned by the U.S.
ambassador in Quito about the 'devastating economic consequences' of a No
vote. Zimbabwe was threatened with new IMF conditions for its debt.

 Fast forward a dozen years: During the autumn of 2002, the U.S.
government has compounded the wallop of its prodigious carrots and sticks
by pointedly reserving the right to do whatever it wants. And, clearly, it
wants to go to war.

 Two days after the Security Council resolution passed 15-0, White
House chief of staff Andrew Card appeared on NBC and said: The U.N. can
meet and discuss, but we don't need their permission before launching a
military attack. Meanwhile, on CNN, the Secretary of State had the same
message. If he [Saddam Hussein] doesn't comply this time, we'll ask the
U.N. to give authorization for all necessary means, Colin Powell declared,
and if the U.N. is not willing to do that, the United States, with
like-minded nations, will go and disarm him forcefully.

 Such proclamations by top U.S. officials blend in with the dominant
media scenery. You're not supposed to notice the substantial ironies and
breathtaking hypocrisies.


Informational link:
Detailed analysis of U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq:
http://www.accuracy.org/un2

[pjnews] Washington Abandons Afghanistan

[parallax]

WASHINGTON ABANDONS AFGHANISTAN: 
Paying for War is Easier than Paying for Peace

Frida Berrigan, World Policy Institute
November 21, 2002

As Washington prepares for war in Iraq, officials are trying to
reassure Afghanistan that it will not be lost in the shuffle. Muhammad
Ali, heavy weight champ and UN Messenger of Peace, recently completed a
three day tour of Afghanistan where he tried to focus international
attention on the country's plight and gave volleyballs and jumping ropes
to children. U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill also came, bearing
promises that the war in Iraq would not derail Washington's commitment
to rebuilding Afghanistan. 

But Afghanistan needs more than reassurance and high level visits, it
need a massive influx of humanitarian and reconstruction aid.
Recognizing this, Congress recently approved a $2.3 billion aid package
for Afghanistan over the next four years, and another $1 billion to fund
the peacekeeping effort. While that is more than the Bush administration
requested, it is just a drop in an ocean of need. The United Nations
estimates that the reconstruction effort alone will cost between $10-15
billion, on top of the billions needed to address the humanitarian
crisis. President Bush proudly cited the true strength of character and
kindness of the American people, in aiding Afghanistan and highlighted
the Fund for Afghan Children, which raised $10.5 million from U.S.
schoolchildren. While this is a laudable effort, The Nation contributor
David Corn points out that $10.5 million is about one-twentieth of what
Bush spent to get elected in 2000. And it is almost insignificant
compared to the estimated $2.5 billion the administration is spending
each month to prosecute the war. 

Joseph Biden (D-DE) remarked that the aid would help keep Afghanistan
from sliding back into chaos and becoming a haven for terrorists
again. But a close look at what is happening on the ground reveals that
it might be too late to stave off chaos and keep terrorism at bay. 

Afghanistan is far from stable. U.S. troops in Afghanistan are being
fired on by Al-Qaeda an average of three times a week. There has been a
ten-fold increase in opium production in the last year, and the drug
lords are Northern Alliance leaders and U.S. allies who helped oust the
Taliban. The Afghani police killed two students who were part of a
demonstration protesting the lack of electricity and running water in
their dorms. The government of President Hamid Karzai is so shaky that
he has three separate security details- his own, U.S. Special Forces and
personnel from a private military company called DynCorp. 

The humanitarian crisis is critical. According to the United Nations,
half of all Afghan children suffer from chronic malnutrition and one out
of every four children dies before the age of five. There are almost 4
million Afghan refugees, mostly women and children. An estimated 16,000
women dying each year from pregnancy-related causes, this is the 2nd
highest maternal mortality rate in the world. Afghanistan's ability to
produce food has been seriously reduced; grain production has fallen by
more than 50% in the past two years, and livestock herds are severely
depleted. The primary road network is in shambles, with half in need of
reconstruction. Outside of Kabul many people still walk three miles to
get water.

Terrorism remains an issue, but more and more the terrorized are
Afghani civilians. In a recently released report, Human Rights Watch
asserts that U.S. military forces are actively backing Ismail Khan, a
warlord in western Afghanistan with a disastrous human rights record.
Earlier this year, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with Khan
and described him as an appealing person, but those suffering beneath
his rule would not agree. HRW documents widespread abuses by officials
under Khan's command, including arbitrary and politically motivated
arrests, intimidation, extortion and torture.

While the United States is shirking its responsibility to contribute to
the momentous task of rebuilding and reestablishing stability in
Afghanistan, the Bush administration is willing to pay for a new war
against Iraq that will not come at a discount. Yale economist William
Nordhaus estimates the economic impacts of war in Iraq could be as large
as $120 billion to $1.5 trillion. These staggering figures take into
account the effects of possible disruption in the oil markets, Iraqi use
of chemical and biological weapons, the costs of an extended military
occupation of Iraq, and other factors that have not been addressed in
estimates to date.  If Washington abandons Afghanistan; will another
cost of war in Iraq be the continued suffering of the Afghani people?
Will another casualty of war in Iraq be stability and democracy deferred
in Afghanistan? 

Resources:

ALL OUR HOPES ARE CRUSHED:  Violence and Repression in Western
Afghanistan
Human Rights Watch, October 5, 2002. 
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/afghan3/ 

[pjnews] Antiwar Movement Gains Momentum

[parallax]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61647-2002Dec1.html

Antiwar Effort Gains Momentum 
Growing Peace Movement's Ranks Include Some Unlikely Allies 

By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 2, 2002; Page A01 

AMHERST, Mass.-- The idea was hatched on a bright day in August, when Daphne
Reed was celebrating her daughter's and granddaughter's birthdays, and the talk
around the living room sofa turned to war.Reed began worrying that her
25-year-old grandson, who spent four years in the Coast Guard, might be called
to serve if the United States were to invade Iraq. Her family also wondered why
the United States was threatening to invade Iraq even before United Nations
weapons inspections began. And Reed fretted over the particular suffering that
would befall Iraqi women; their sons and husbands would be killed, she said,
and the women would be left in the rubble to fend off contaminated water and
starvation. 

I said that all mothers should automatically be against war, Reed said. It
was against their nature to be violent instead of nurturing. Maybe, she said,
it was time to start a movement -- Mothers Against War. 

Reed's response is just a tiny part of a growing peace movement that has been
gaining momentum and raises the possibility that there could be much more
dissent if U.S. bombs begin falling on Baghdad. 

The retired Hampshire College drama teacher e-mailed about 15 parents in her
address book. Reed reached people such as Elaine Kenseth, whose five children
include a son she adopted from the killing fields of Cambodia. Aileen
O'Donnell, a veteran of the women's movement. Joanne and Roger Lind, whose son
was a Vietnam War conscientious objector. And Elizabeth Verrill, who had never
been involved in political causes. Before long, Mothers Against War had 50 core
members, and thousands of supporters around the country and the world. 

Most members of Mothers Against War are grandmothers in their seventies whose
lives are already full. Yet they spend hours a day on the Internet, reading and
spreading information on Iraq and the United States and planning for marches,
e-mail campaigns and teach-ins. Having lived through the Vietnam antiwar
movement, which took years to build, the Mothers Against War are buoyed to find
themselves part of a fast-growing movement of people from every walk of life,
from every political stripe. 

The extraordinary array of groups questioning the Bush administration's
rationale for an invasion of Iraq includes longtime radical groups such as the
Workers World Party, but also groups not known for taking stands against the
government. There is a labor movement against war, led by organizers of the
largest unions in the country; a religious movement against the war, which
includes leaders of virtually every mainstream denomination; a veterans
movement against the war, led by those who fought Iraq in the Persian Gulf a
decade ago; business leaders against the war, led by corporate leaders; an
antiwar movement led by relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks;
and immigrant groups against the war. 

There are also black and Latino organizations, hundreds of campus antiwar
groups and scores of groups of ordinary citizens meeting in community centers
and church basements from Baltimore to Seattle. 

It has reached a point where United for Peace, a Web site started by the San
Francisco-based human rights organization Global Exchange for groups to list
events commemorating the Sept. 11 anniversary, has morphed into a national
network coordinating events for more than 70 peace groups nationwide. 

We're taking the . . . Web site and rebuilding it as a one-stop shopping for
the antiwar movement, said Andrea Buffa, who co-chairs the new network. It's
a campaign of all different kinds of groups, from the National Council of
Churches to the International Socialists organization; I just got a call from
the Raging Grannies of Palo Alto, who want to join. We're bringing groups
together to develop a consensus statement and a calendar of coordinated antiwar
events. 

Next Test: Dec. 10 Rallies After large rallies in Washington and San Francisco
on Oct. 26, the next big day to test the antiwar movement's might is Dec. 10,
International Human Rights Day. Hundreds of groups plan events, rallies and
civil disobedience to capture the nation's attention, including demonstrations
in Lafayette Park across from the White House and at a military recruitment
center in downtown Washington. 

Otherwise, antiwar groups, which tend to rely on the Internet to receive and
spread information, operate largely without the attention of the media or
Capitol Hill. Yet many of those speaking out against an attack on Iraq
represent large numbers of Americans, including John J. Sweeney, president of
the AFL-CIO (with 13 million members); the National Council of Churches (which
represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations, with 50 million members);
and the National 

[pjnews] Voices in the Wilderness fined $20,000

[parallax]

-Original Message-
From: Voices in the Wilderness [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 6:21 PM
To: 'Voices in the Wilderness'
Subject: Voices fined by the Treasury Dept and our response 

Dear friends,
 
Voices in the Wilderness received a letter from the Treasury Department,
placing fines for $20,000, which are due this Thursday December 5th,
2002.  The letter, and Voices response, have been posted on the front
page of www.vitw.org This, along with individual fines placed against
Dan Handelman, Bert Sacks, and Rev. Randall Mullins, total $50,000.
Many of you know of our recent efforts with the Iraq Peace Team, and how
Bert and Randall refused to pay the fines and instead sent medicines to
Iraq.  
 
Voices in the Wilderness will decline payment, and continue our
delegations that deliver medicines and othere needed goods.  We will not
be silenced. We will not be divided.
 
We do need your help.  Please help us spread the word - there is more
information in the press release below and posted at www.vitw.org.  We
will also be sending a declaration asking for your direct help and
participation to ' Break the Sanctions'  in the coming days.
 
Thanks for all of your support and collaboration- 
 
peace
danny muller
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Contact: Danny Muller
office: 773-784-8965
cell: 917-217-6809
 

HUMANITARIAN GROUP FINED $50,000 FOR BRINGING MEDICINE TO IRAQ

On November 6 the U.S. Treasury Department imposed $20,000 in fines on
Chicago-based Voices in the Wilderness (VitW), a campaign to end the
sanctions on Iraq. On December 5 at 10 AM members of VitW will hold a
press conference on the 2nd floor of Grace Place, 637 S. Dearborn,
Chicago.  They will affirm that they have traveled to Iraq in nonviolent
defiance of US/UN sanctions and announce that they intend to raise
thousands of dollars to continue breaking the embargo.

Sue Mackley, Nathan Mauger and others who have returned from Iraq in the
past few weeks will be joined by delegates scheduled to travel to Iraq
before the end of the year.

These fines are for delivering medicine to Iraq without a permit in
1998.  They are directed against VitW co-founder and double Nobel Peace
Prize nominee Kathy Kelly of Chicago. Dan Handleman, of Portland,
Oregon, was simultaneously fined $10,000 for alleged travel-related
expenses incurred during a 1997 VitW delegation to Iraq.  Earlier this
year, Bert Sacks and Rev. Randall Mullins, both of Seattle, were fined
$10,000 each for taking part in the same 1997 delegation. They refused
to pay, and instead raised over $10,000 to buy more medicine to bring to
Iraq. This medicine was delivered by Sacks last September.

The fines come as VitW is sending Americans and other internationals to
Iraq almost every week to take part in its Iraq Peace Team. Currently
there are 16 volunteers in Baghdad with Iraq Peace Team. In the event of
another US military assault on Iraq, they intend to help coordinate
humanitarian efforts, offer independent reporting, and stand in
solidarity with Iraqi civilians.

We will not consent to pay any fine,” said Kathy Kelly, currently in
Baghdad with the Iraq Peace Team. “We simply reject the government's
contention that we cannot carry medicine to the sick, and assert that it
is a greater evil to let the children die. 

Since January, 1996, VitW has sent over fifty delegations to Iraq. In
addition to medicine, they have illegally brought to Iraq toys, medical
books and journals, blood bags, pens and pencils for schools.  Voices in
the Wilderness representatives will be available to speak publicly and
with the media.   VitW has sent hundreds of delegates from over forty
states- for local representatives, please contact us directly at 773 784
8065.

[pjnews] HBO Recycling Gulf War Hoax

[parallax]

Fairness  Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

ACTION ALERT:
HBO Recycling Gulf War Hoax?

December 4, 2002

The fraudulent story of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of
incubators during the occupation of Kuwait in 1990 is depicted as if it
were true in Live from Baghdad, the HBO film premiering on the cable
network this Saturday that purports to tell the story behind CNN's
coverage of the Gulf War.  HBO and CNN are both owned by the AOL Time
Warner media conglomerate.

In the months before the Gulf War began, media uncritically repeated the
claim that Iraqi soldiers were removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators. 
The story was launched by the testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl
before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in October 1990.  Eventually,
as repeated in the media by the first President Bush and countless others,
it blossomed into a tale involving over 300 Kuwaiti babies.

What was not reported at the time was the fact that the public relations
company Hill  Knowlton was partly behind the effort, and the girl who
testified was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to
Washington.  Subsequent investigations, including one by Amnesty
International, found no evidence for the claims (ABC World News Tonight,
3/15/91).

In the film, the story is turned upside down, portrayed as a deft public
relations move by the Iraqi government, who grant CNN access to Kuwait in
a calculated attempt to discredit the rumors that their soldiers were
pulling babies from incubators.  CNN reporters are ushered to a hospital
in Kuwait, where a doctor, under obvious pressure from Iraqi soldiers,
tells the reporters that no babies had been pulled from the incubators.

The CNN team does not believe the obviously nervous doctor is telling the
truth, and the Iraqi officials pick up on this, promptly cutting the
interview short.  The scene ends with the doctor being led away by Iraqi
officials.  Moments later, the CNN crew listens to a BBC report on the
radio that suggests that CNN had debunked the story of Iraqi soldiers
killing Kuwaiti babies, and CNN's reporters are upset that they've been
used by the Iraqi officials.

The key exchange happens as follows:

--
CNN correspondent: You are aware of the allegations, doctor?
Doctor:  I have heard these stories.
CNN producer Ingrid Formanek (whisper): This sucks. He's scared. 
CNN producer Robert Wiener (whisper): Yeah, this is bad.
Doctor: I can tell you, nothing has happened at this hospital... that I
know.
Correspondent: But at other hospitals?
Doctor: I cannot tell about other hospitals.
Iraqi handler: Finish! Finish! We go now!
Formanek: To the other hospitals?
Handler: No, back to Baghdad!
Wiener: Hey, hey, that was part of the deal!
Handler: That is story.
--

The clear implication is that the CNN reporters were used by the Iraqi
government to make a true story of atrocities seem false.  A review of the
movie in the Indianapolis Star (12/1/02) arrived at that very conclusion,
noting that CNN played into the Iraqis' hands on a couple of occasions,
including an ill-fated trip to Kuwait where the Iraqis used the CNN crew
to counter reports that their soldiers had been removing Kuwaiti babies
from hospital incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.

Live from Baghdad is a dramatization, not a documentary, but it is being
presented by HBO as a behind-the-scenes true story of the Gulf War and
is being released at a crucial political moment.  HBO's version of history
never makes clear that the incubator story was fraudulent, and in fact had
been managed by an American PR firm, not Iraq.  Curiously, however, the
truth seems to have been clear to Robert Wiener, the former CNN producer
who co-wrote Live from Baghdad.  As he explained to CNN's Wolf Blitzer
(11/21/02), that story turned out to be false because those accusations
were made by the daughter of the Kuwaiti minister of information and were
never proven.

Unfortunately, HBO viewers won't know that when they see the film.


ACTION:
Let HBO know you are concerned about the distortion of history in their
movie Live From Baghdad. With another war with Iraq looming, HBO could
better serve viewers by debunking wartime propaganda, instead of re-airing
it.

CONTACT HBO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you 
maintain a polite tone. Please cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your correspondence.

To learn more about Hill  Knowlton's role in the first Gulf War, read PR 
Watch's How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf:
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

  --
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[pjnews] Philip Berrigan's Statement

[parallax]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 6, 2002
9:30 PM

CONTACT:  Jonas House
Becky Johnson 202-607-9345

Philip Berrigan, Anti-War Activist,
Dies at Home in Baltimore, MD  
   
BALTIMORE - December 6 - Phil Berrigan died December 6, 2002 at about 9:30 PM, 
at Jonah House, a community he co-founded in 1973, surrounded by family and 
friends. He died two months after being diagnosed with liver and kidney cancer, 
and one month after deciding to discontinue chemotherapy. Approximately thirty 
close friends and fellow peace activists gathered for the ceremony of last 
rites on November 30, to celebrate his life and anoint him for the next part of 
his journey. Berrigan's brother and co-felon, Jesuit priest Daniel Berrigan 
officiated.  

During his nearly 40 years of resistance to war and violence, Berrigan focused 
on living and working in community as a way to model the nonviolent, 
sustainable world he was working to create. Jonah House members live simply, 
pray together, share duties, and attempt to expose the violence of militarism 
and consumerism. The community was born out of resistance to the Vietnam War, 
including high-profile draft card burning actions; later the focus became 
ongoing resistance to U.S. nuclear policy, including Plowshares actions that 
aim to enact Isaiah's biblical prophecy of a disarmed world. Because of these 
efforts Berrigan spent about 11 years in prison. He wrote, lectured, and taught 
extensively, publishing six books, including an autobiography, Fighting the 
Lamb's War. 

In his last weeks, Berrigan was surrounded by his family, including his wife 
Elizabeth McAlister, with whom he founded Jonah House; his children Frida, 28, 
Jerry, 27, and Kate, 21; community members Susan Crane, Gary Ashbeck, and David 
Arthur; and extended family and community. Community members Ardeth Platte and 
Carol Gilbert, Dominican sisters, were unable to be physically present at Jonah 
House; they are currently in jail in Colorado awaiting trial for a disarmament 
action at a missile silo, the 79th international Plowshares action. One of 
Berrigan's last actions was to bless the upcoming marriage of Frida to Ian 
Marvy. 

Berrigan wrote a final statement in the days before his death. His final 
comments included this: I die with the conviction, held since 1968 and 
Catonsville, that nuclear weapons are the scourge of the earth; to mine for 
them, manufacture them, deploy them, use them, is a curse against God, the 
human family, and the earth itself.

The wake and funeral will be held at St. Peter Claver Church in West Baltimore, 
(1546 North Fremont Avenue, Baltimore MD 21217); calling hours: 4-8 PM Sunday 
December 8 with a circle of sharing about Phil's life at 6 PM; funeral: Monday, 
December 9, 12 PM. All are invited to process with the coffin from the 
intersection of Bentalou and Laurens streets to St. Peter Claver Church at 10 
AM (please drop off marchers and park at the church). A public reception at the 
St. Peter Claver hall will follow the funeral mass; internment is private. In 
place of flowers and gifts for the offertory, attendees may bring pictures or 
other keepsakes. Mourners may make donations in Berrigan's name to Citizens for 
Peace in Space, Global Network Against Nuclear Weapons, Nukewatch, Voices in 
the Wilderness, the Nuclear Resister, or any Catholic Worker house.

_

Phil Berrigan's statement before death
12/05/02 (via Liz McAlister)

Philip began dictating this statement the weekend before Thanksgiving. It was 
all clear - he had it written in his head. Word for word I wrote...

WHEN I LAY DYING...of cancer
Philip Berrigan

I die in a community including my family, my beloved wife Elizabeth, three 
great Dominican nuns - Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert, and Jackie Hudson 
(emeritus) jailed in Western Colorado - Susan Crane, friends local, national 
and even international. They have always been a life-line to me. I die with the 
conviction, held since 1968 and Catonsville, that nuclear weapons are the 
scourge of the earth; to mine for them, manufacture them, deploy them, use 
them, is a curse against God, the human family, and the earth itself. We have 
already exploded such weapons in Japan in 1945 and the equivalent of them in 
Iraq in 1991, in Yugoslavia in 1999, and in Afghanistan in 2001. We left a 
legacy for other people of deadly radioactive isotopes - a prime 
counterinsurgency measure. For example, the people of Iraq, Yugoslavia, 
Afghanistan and Pakistan will be battling cancer, mostly from depleted uranium, 
for decades. In addition, our nuclear adventurism over 57 years has saturated 
the planet with nuclear garbage from testing, from explosions in high altitudes 
(four of these), from 103 nuclear power plants, from nuclear weapons factories 
that can't be cleaned up - and so on. Because of myopic leadership, of greed 
for possessions, a public chained to corporate media, there has been virtually 
no response to these 

[pjnews] 12/10 Final Call for Action

[parallax]

http://www.unitedforpeace.org
FINAL CALL FOR DECEMBER 10-ALL OUT TO STOP THE WAR NOW! 


Friends in United for Peace, 

The war drums are beating, and pundits are saying we may be bombing Iraq by
Christmas. This coming weekend President Bush may well declare the Iraqi
government is in material breach of the UN resolution, despite what the
inspectors say, or the Security Council, or Kofi Annan. 

Fortunately, United for Peace and the mushrooming antiwar movement we help lead
are ready to confront the warmakers directly. We agreed at our October 25
founding meeting to make December 10, International Human Rights Day, a
nationwide day of action against the war. 

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT EACH OF US--AND EVERY FRIEND, ACQUAINTANCE, COLLEAGUE,
RELATIVE, AND LOVED ONE WE KNOW WHO CARES ABOUT PEACE-TAKE ACTION NEXT TUESDAY
TO STOP THE WAR **NOW**. 

Please forward this message to every chapter, affiliate and contact of your
organization, to your board members, your keylist, your listserve. Please send
it to everyone in your address book or rolodex. Please post it on every
listserve to which you subscribe. And then make the follow-up calls to
communicate how urgent his is: this may be our last chance to send a strong,
concerted message before the U.S. commits military forces. [The e-flyer for
December 10 can be downloaded from
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/new/downloads/Dec10flyerfinal.pdf. It will be
updated later today, and the original email announcement is below, if you wan t
to use that.] 

Every group, no matter how small, can do something next Tuesday. Even if just 5
or 10 of you go down to the Post Office or recruiting station at 5, after work,
when it's dark, and light candles-that counts. Plan something (leafleting,
vigilling, rallying, banner-hanging), and get the word out ASAP. 

We have confirmed 25 actions in 15 states, and we hear reports of many, many
more, but we need to know. Once you've made your plan, it is equally crucial
that you*POST THE INFORMATION* on the United for Peace website
(unitedforpeace.org): the local contact person's name, phone number and email
address, and the exact location and time of your activity. The national press
is calling us every day, wanting to know what we are planning (see the
excellent Washington Post story from Dec. 2, at the bottom of this message).
What will impress them is *not* one or two big rallies, but dozens and
hundreds in small towns, and supposedly conservative areas. That's what they
want to write about-so join in, and find out how many ordinary Americans
agree with us (a majority, according to the most recent polls). 

December 10 is not just for organized groups-it's a day of action for all of
us, for individuals too. If you're old enough, think of it like the Moratorium
in October 1969-wear a blue and white armband (our official colors now), or
talk to co-workers or fellow students. Call the president at 202-456-. BUT
DO SOMETHING. 

Did you know that more than 70 organizations are now officially signed on to
United for Peace? We are growing daily, and now represent millions of
Americans. 

Here's the updated list of member groups (and if your group is not on this
list, and wants to be, email Andrea Buffa at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and she'll
add you):
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee 
American Friends Service Committee 
Americans for Social Justice 
An Absurd Response to an Absurd War 
Anti-Capitalist Convergence 
CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities 
Campus Greens 
Center for Community Change 
Change the Game 
Citizen Works 
The Connected Collective 
Democracy Rising 
East End Women in Black 
Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) 
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights 
Georgetown Peace Action 
Global Exchange 
Green Party of the United States 
International Socialist Organization 
Institute for Policy Studies, Peace Working Group 
A Jewish Voice for Peace 
KhaYUMbia 
Lamorinda Peace and Justice Group 
Left Turn 
Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives 
Middle East Children's Alliance 
Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) 
Mobilize New York 
National Coalition for Peace and Justice 
National Council of Churches 
National Network to End the War Against Iraq 
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 
Not In Our Name 
Nowar Collective 
Pax Christi USA 
Peace Action 
Peoples NonViolent Response Coalition (PNVRC) 
Psychologists for Social Responsibility 
September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows 
Shalom Center 
Socialist Action 
Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) 
Students Take Action for New Directions (STAND) 
Students Transforming and Resisting Corporations 
(STARC) 
The Thomas Paine Project 
TransAfrica Forum 
TrueMajority 
United for Justice with Peace 
US Peace Council 
United Students Against Sweatshops 
Veterans for Peace 
War Resisters League West 
War Times 
Washington Peace Center 
Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) 
Western States Legal Foundation 
Women's International League for 

[pjnews] Iraq Says UN Report Shows No Banned Arms

[parallax]

New York Times
December 8, 2002

Iraq Says Report to the U.N. Shows No Banned Arms
By JOHN F. BURNS

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 7 — Iraq today delivered a 12,000-page declaration on 
banned weapons to the United Nations, meeting a Security Council deadline with 
more than 24 hours to spare. Officials said the documents confirmed, in 
rebuttal of American and British claims, that Saddam Hussein's government had 
no weapons of mass destruction and no current programs to develop them. 

Mr. Hussein also chose today to deliver a statement on Kuwait, offering an 
apology to God if Iraq unknowingly harmed the desert kingdom with its invasion 
in 1990. But he coupled that muted climbdown with an appeal to Islamic 
militants in Kuwait — a diverse group with at least some past links to Al 
Qaeda — to join him in fighting the occupying infidel armies, meaning the 
United States, which he said was preparing to invade Iraq from Kuwait.

You have seen the intentions of the officials of Kuwait, and of the occupying 
foreigner with their hand-in-hand schemes, he said, adding, Why don't the 
believers, loyalists and holy warriors get together with their counterparts in 
Iraq under the tent of their Creator — instead of the tent of London, 
Washington or the Zionist entity — to discuss first and foremost jihad against 
the infidel armies.

In Washington this afternoon, the Bush administration prepared the C.I.A. and 
the national laboratories to analyze the report as soon as they obtain a copy. 
Underscoring the urgency of the task, they were preparing to compare it with 
intelligence information about Mr. Hussein's known weapons projects before 
inspectors were withdrawn in 1998, and some information — portions of it 
apparently gleaned from defectors — about the programs since. 

The White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, issued a terse statement noting 
that Mr. Hussein had met the deadline with what it claims is a declaration of 
its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic 
missiles, and other delivery systems. National security officials said, 
however, that the declaration must be more than accurate; it must lead United 
Nations inspectors to arms caches, or to irrefutable evidence that they have 
been destroyed.

At a news conference in Baghdad, the Iraqi official in charge of preparing the 
weapons declaration, Maj. Gen. Hussam Muhammad Amin, said the 
documents verified the position Iraq had taken ever since the United States 
and Britain, threatening war, accused Baghdad this year of continuing with 
secret nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. Iraq contends that it 
has abandoned all such projects and met longstanding demands that it disarm. 

In the new report, General Amin said, we declare that Iraq is empty of any 
weapons of mass destruction. To hammer the point home, he told reporters 
summoned for an early sighting of the documents at Baghdad University that Mr. 
Hussein had ordered Iraqi officials to be fair and frank in the 
declaration. That means that when we say we have no weapons of mass 
destruction, we are speaking the truth, he said. 

The Iraqi report appears to set the stage for a still sharper confrontation 
between the United States and Iraq, with the ball effectively now back in the 
American court. Senior Bush administration officials have repeatedly said Iraq 
has revived some of the banned weapons programs it has now formally denied, and 
warned that Mr. Hussein would be running the gantlet of war if he returned to 
the patterns of the past, trying to save his secret projects by deceit.

A senior administration official said in an interview in Washington on Friday 
that President Bush had elected to take time to have the Iraqi declaration 
analyzed by the C.I.A. and at weapons laboratories.

Mr. Bush warned in his weekly radio address today that the declaration must 
stand up to American scrutiny if Iraq is to avoid military attack. We will 
judge the declaration's honesty and completeness only after we have thoroughly 
examined it, and that will take some time, he said.

Late Friday, a senior official speaking at the White House said the 
administration had significant concerns based on different sources that Iraq 
was assembling the cascade of centrifuges needed to produce a nuclear weapon 
from highly enriched uranium, the same technology that North Korea is using. 
Clearly American officials will be looking for any hint of such a program in 
the voluminous document, even if Iraq claims that it is for a peaceful purpose. 

The official also made it clear that Mr. Bush would feel free to take military 
action if the administration determines, after its full assessment, that Iraq 
is probably lying. This is not a court of law, he said. This is a matter for 
national security, and we have to go with the preponderance of the evidence.

A senior administration official, asked about the evidence, said: Since 1998, 
there have been a number of 

[pjnews] US propaganda fueled first Gulf War

[parallax]

This time I'm scared: US propaganda fuelled the first Gulf war. It will fuel
this one too - and the risks are even greater

Maggie O'Kane 
Thursday December 5, 2002 

The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,854148,00.html

I have a picture from the last Gulf war. It was taken in the basement of the Al
Rashid hotel, the night the war started. The look on my face is one you might
expect of a 28-year-old reporter at the centre of one of the biggest stories of
my lifetime: earnest, excited and thrilled to be in Baghdad. 

Eleven years later, I'm on maternity leave and the news of an impending second
Gulf war follows me around the kitchen. This time, I feel only a sense of
intense danger as the Middle East lurches towards a possible chemical and
biological war. 

The chances of Saddam Hussein using chemical and biological weapons if attacked
are, according to the testimony of the CIA to the US Senate intelligence
committee on October 7, pretty high - a scenario that even one of greatest
hawks in US history, Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to
George Bush senior, says would lead to meltdown in the Middle East. As of
December 7, when Iraq is expected to produce its definitive dossier, there
should be no illusions: no matter what Baghdad discloses, America and almost
certainly Britain are going to war. The material breach, if it does not
happen by itself, will be manufactured, so wringing consent for the second Gulf
war just as consent was manufactured with breathtaking cynicism in 1991. 

There were two glaring examples of how the propaganda machine worked before the
first Gulf war. First, in the final days before the war started on January 9,
the Pentagon insisted that not only was Saddam Hussein not withdrawing from
Kuwait - he was - but that he had 265,000 troops poised in the desert to pounce
on Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon claimed to have satellite photographs to prove
it. Thus, the waverers and anti-war protesters were silenced. 

We now know from declassified documents and satellite photographs taken by a
Russian commercial satellite that there were no Iraqi troops poised to attack
Saudi. At the time, no one bothered to ask for proof. 

No one except Jean Heller, a five-times nominated Pulitzer prize-winning
journalist from the St Petersburg Times in Florida, who persuaded her bosses to
buy two photos at $1,600 each from the Russian commercial satellite, the Soyuz
Karta. Guess what? No massing troops. You could see the planes sitting wing
tip to wing tip in Riyadh airport, Ms Heller says, but there wasn't was any
sign of a quarter of a million Iraqi troops sitting in the middle of the
desert. So what will the fake satellite pictures show this time: a massive
chemical installation with Iraqi goblins cooking up anthrax? 

The US propaganda machine is already gearing up. In its sights already is Hans
Blix, the chief weapons inspector. He's too much of a softie for Saddam, the
former CIA director James Wolsey told the Today programme last week. His work
is of limited value. He was Kofi Annan's second choice. 

What next? Blix's granny is Iraqi? He has a drugs problem? 

Meanwhile, in Britain, Jack Straw's new human rights dossier on Iraq is timed
to coincide with the build-up. Convenient, eh? The second tactic used to get
consensus for war in 1991 was another propaganda classic: dead babies. Then,
the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington, Nijirah al-Sabah,
tearfully described how, as a volunteer in the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait
City, she had watched Iraqi soldiers looting incubators to take back to
Baghdad, pitching the Kuwaiti babies on to the cold floor to die. 

Except it never happened. The Filipina nurses, Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra
Ancog Cooke, who worked in the maternity ward of the Al Adnan hospital, had
never seen Ms al-Sabah in their lives. Amnesty admitted they had been duped.
Middle East Watch confirmed the fabrication, but it was too late: a marginal US
Congress had been swung to vote for war. George Bush senior mentioned the
incubator babies seven times in pre-war rallying speeches. It was months
before the truth came out. By then, the war was over. 

This time, we have yet to see what propaganda will be used to rally consensus
for the second Gulf war by proving a material breach. It is highly likely
that Saddam Hussein maintains at least some chemical and biological capacity.
In a war in which his own survival is unlikely (and already rumoured to be ill
with cancer) Saddam Hussein has nothing to lose. If he knows his fall is
imminent, what terrible legacy might he choose to leave behind? What better
present to his extremist Arab brothers than an attack on Israel? And how will
the US, Britain or Israel respond if their troops or cities come under chemical
or biological attack? 

I n 1995, the Washington-based Defense News reported on the outcome of the then
highly classified Global 95 Wargame, a high-level military exercise enacted at
the US Naval 

[pjnews] Trent Lott's racist remarks

[parallax]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20730-2002Dec6.html

Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond 
GOP Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist 

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A06 

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by 
saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist 
candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. 
Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, I want to 
say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for 
him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, 
we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.

Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the 
breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana 
and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. 
Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas 
Dewey: All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot 
force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.

On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to 
nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, We stand for the 
segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, 
said yesterday he was stunned by Lott's comments, which were broadcast live by 
C-SPAN. I could not believe he was saying what he said, Lewis said. In 1948, 
he said, Thurmond was one of the best-known segregationists. Is Lott saying 
the country should have voted to continue segregation, for segregated 
schools, 'white' and 'colored' restrooms? . . . That is what Strom Thurmond 
stood for in 1948.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said Oh, God, 
when he learned of Lott's comments. It's ludicrous. He should remember it's 
the party of Lincoln, referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the 
Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.

Lott's office played down the significance of the senator's remarks. Spokesman 
Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: Senator Lott's remarks were 
intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read 
anything more into these comments is wrong.

Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not 
have had all these problems if the rest of the nation had followed 
Mississippi's lead and elected Thurmond in 1948.

Lott's comments came in the middle of Thursday's celebration for Thurmond, 
Congress's oldest and longest-serving member. Lott followed at the lectern 
former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan). Initially Lott made jokes 
about Dole and then became serious when discussing how Mississippi voted in 
1948.

The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present 
staffers, applauded Lott when he said we're proud of the 1948 vote. But when 
he said we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years if 
Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence.

In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a 
speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization 
formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In 
a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: The people in this 
room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in 
the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries.

Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, 
CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said God bless Trent Lott.

[pjnews] Religious Leaders Blast Bush

[parallax]

Ad, followed by a call to action to contact the media...

Pres. Bush, let Jesus change your mind.
-- Full page NYTimes Ad Dec 4, 2002

RELIGIOUS LEADERS FOR SENSIBLE PRIORITIES
P.O. Box 1976 Old Chelsea Station
New York, NY 10113
Reverend Robert Edgar
Chair, Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorites
General Secretary, National Council of Churches

PRESIDENT BUSH, JESUS CHANGED YOUR HEART. NOW LET HIM CHANGE YOUR MIND. 

We beseech you to turn back from the brink of war on Iraq. Your war would
violate the teachings of Jesus Christ. It would violate the tenets, prayers and
entreaties of your own United Methodist Church bishops. It would ignore the
pleas of hundreds of Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders. You've proclaimed
the crucial role of your faith in your life, and you've said that people of
faith are often our nation's voice of conscience. Listen to our voices now.

This is not a just war. .We acknowledge that Saddam Hussein is a cruel tyrant,
but a war on the country he rules is not a just war. It will be an unprovoked,
preemptive attack on a nation which is not threatening the United States. It
will violate the United Nations Charter and set a dangerous precedent for other
nations. It will bring death and destruction to Baghdad, a huge city filled
with innocent civilians. It will take the lives of too many of our own sons and
daughters.

And its huge cost will be gouged out of the already unmet needs of the poor,
the underfed and the under-educated in our own country.

It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of
Peace, would support this proposed attack...

Those are the words of the General Secretary of the United Methodist Church's
General Board of Church and Society. Your church leaders have sought private
hearings with you to express their passionate objections; they've been denied.
All of us who signed this statement share their convictions. A strong
faith-based revolt against war on Iraq is coming together in the first weeks of
December. If Jesus Christ truly changed your heart as you have said, let Him
change your mind. 

Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, Ecumenical Officer, Council of Bishops, The United
Methodist Church. Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of
Detroit.Pat Clark, National Coordinator, Fellowship of Reconciliation. Dave
Robinson, National Coordinator, Pax Christi USA. Kathy Thornton, RSM, National
Coordinator, NETWORK, National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. Rev. Michael E.
Livingston, Exec. Dir., International Council of Community Churches. Bishop
Bennett J. Sims, Founder, Institute for Servant Leadership, Bishop Paul Moore
Jr., Episcopal Bishop of New York (ret.). Jim Walis, Exec. Dir., Sojourners.
Michael S. Kendal, Archdeacon, Episcopal Diocese of New York.Rev. George M.
Houser, fmr. Exec. Dir., American Committe on Africa.Frederick Buechner,
Minister.Sister Gail Worcelo, President, Green Mountain Monastery.Rabbi Steven
B. Jacobs, Temple Kol Tikva.The Reverend Jeri R. Dexheimer-Dowle, The
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The Reverend John M. Fischer, American
Baptist Churches, USA.The Reverend Mary Navarré Moore, Episcopal Diocese of
East Tennessee. Morad Abou-Sabé, President, Arab American League of Voters of
NJ.Rev. Robert Moore, Pastor, East Brunswick Congregational Church  Livingston
Ave. United Church of Christ, NJ. Rev. Roy Bourgeois, MM, Founder, SOA
Watch.Rev. Peter Laarman, Senior Minister, Judson Memorial Church.Rev. Kathleen
S. Wiliams, International Ministerial Felowship.Very Rev. James Parks Morton,
Dean Emeritus.Frank McNeirney, National Coordinator, Catholics Against Capital
Punishment.Rev. Patricia L. Bruger, Executive Director, CUMAC/ECHO.Rev. James
E. Flynn, St. Lawrence Church, Heber City, UT. Sister Mary Landon, fsp,
Franciscan Sisters of Peace. Marilyn Katz, Chicagoans Against War in Iraq.Rev.
Richard Deats, Editor, Fellowship, Fellowship of Reconciliation. Rev. Wiliam A.
Richard, Pastor, Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church, Rockwal, TX. Rev. Stacy
Pever, Bering Memorial United Methodist Church, Houston, TX. Rev. Dr. Mark
Rutledge, Campus Minister, Duke University.Rev. Dr. George Regas. Reverend
Robert E. Nee, LICSW, Catholic Priest, Chaplain, Children's Hospital
Boston.Sister Helene O.Sulivan, M.M., Maryknol Sisters Congregational
Leadership Team. David Selzer, Chair, Janet Chisolm, Vice Chair  Jackie Lynn,
Executive Director, Episcopal Peace Felowship. Rev. Gary Cox, Senior Minister,
University Congregational Church, Wichita KS. Rev. Sam A. Sirianni, Pastor,
Holy Angels Church, Trenton NJ.Prof. James R. Kely, Fordham U. Jeanne Derer,
fsm,  Irma Kennebeck, fsm, Franciscan Sisters of Mary, St. Louis, MO. Pax
Christi New Jersey. Eric M. LeCompte, National Council Chair, Pax Christi USA
.Debra W. Haffner, M.Div., Director, Religious Institute for Sexual Morality,
Justice, and Healing, Norwalk, CT.Eunice Hyer, Coordinator, Pax Christi, Middle
Peninsula VA. Redwood City Franciscan Sisters, Srs. Of St. 

[pjnews] JC Penney Christmas toys

[parallax]

fwd...

Unbelievable JC Penney is offering a very disturbing gift for the kids this 
year: Forward Command Post, a pre-bombed home complete with a soldier  an
American flag to crown it with; all that's missing are dead babies and their 
maimed refugee family. JC Penney also offers a  World Peace Keepers Battle 
Station to help the innocents better understand how it is that War Is Peace.

For a photo of these monstrosities, try:

http://www3.jcpenney.com/jcp/Products.asp?GrpTyp=PRDItemID=05b5baaRefPa

The text there reads: Forward Command Post $44.99
Take command of your soldiers from this fully outfitted battlezone. 
75-piece set includes one 111/2H figurine in military combat gear, toy 
weapons, American flag, chairs and more. Assembled dimensions; 32x16x32H. 
Plastic. 10 lbs. Ages 5 and up.

http://www3.jcpenney.com/jcp/Products.asp?
GrpTyp=PRDItemID=05b5ba2RefPage=Products

or go to www.jcpenney.com search in the Toys section for:   Forward Command 
Post or World Peace Keepers Battle Station

E-mail them at:
http://www.jcpenneyeservices.com/csrv/emailus.asp

Re: Item# IH655-0158A

Please email and/or call J. C. Penney with your thoughts and feelings about 
this toy and pass this link on to as many people as possible.


The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that 
is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, 
and will diligently study them, and to examine any refutations of them; and 
thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is justified.
- Mark Twain

[pjnews] 1/2 Hopeful Cracks in the Bush Facade

[parallax]

Through a Glass Lightly: 10 Hopeful Cracks in the Bush Facade
By Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
http://www.crisispapers.org

Don't know about you, but I find myself caught right in the middle of the glass
half-empty/half-full way of looking at our current political situation.

In my last piece (Shining Our Light on the Shadow Forces: Open Letter to the
Fledgling 'Movement'), I talked about how things are going to get worse before
they get worse, and then even more worse, and then things will start to get
better. In my darker periods -- which these days is most of the time -- I still
believe this, that what is about to come down from BushCo. in the next few
years is going to be horrendous, both for Americans domestically and for those
in the way of U.S. imperial moves abroad. 

Domestically, due-process Constitutional protections, already in shreds thanks
to Bush  Ashcroft, will nearly disappear. Big Brother government will invade
our privacy in virtually every area of our lives, thanks to technological
breakthroughs and the magic word terrorists. More citizens will be yanked off
to the American gulags, cut off from judicial review or even their attorneys.
Internationally, BushCo. will continue to march forward belligerently,
arrogantly and theateningly in their desire to bring benevolent hegemony to
those areas of the world rich in minerals and energy sources, thus stirring up
anti-U.S. rebellions and fueling more terrorism.

But rather than dwell on that awful picture, and what it presages for the
future -- the glass half-empty scenario -- let's search for any hopeful signs
that point to a way out of our current morass. 


In this glass-half-full approach, consider these:

1. Big Brotherism. A number of anti-big-government conservatives, appalled at
the Constitutional excesses of the Bush Administration and its Big Brother
approach to snooping on American citizens, have begun to rebel. A bit late, of
course -- since many of them supported those very excesses in helping get the
USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security bill passed -- but better late than
never. 

It almost boggles the mind to read that such rightwing stalwarts as Dick Armey,
Bob Barr, and Henry Hyde are about to join forces with the American Civil
Liberties Union, as consultants, to try to rein in the police-state tactics of
the Bush Administration. Politics does indeed put one in the sack with the
strangest bedfellows. (Incidentally, the ACLU -- which is running TV ads in
selected markets showing Ashcroft taking scissors to the Constitution --
reports that it is being inundated with new members, up 12% from last year at
this time, and rising fast.) 

In addition, such conservative/libertarian columnists as William Safire and Pat
Buchanan likewise are taking frontal potshots at the excesses of this arrogant
Administration and its approach to the Constitution. Good on them!

If the civil libertarian wing of the Democratic party, and the anti-war
movement in general, are wise, they will welcome these lapsed brethren into the
anti-BushCo. fold and try to utilize their conservative credentials to lure
more such disaffected Republicans to the cause of restoring Constitutional
balance and due-process to our polity. (I think the Democrats may have leaders
with that kind of wisdom; I'm not sure about some of the segments of the
anti-war movement, still locked into slogans and behaviors that are sure to
alienate the great middle-class of Americans, without whom no political
movement can make much progress.)


2. The Jeffords example. Given this relatively slight but growing conservative
opposition to BushCo. excesses, there may be more leverage for leaning on such
moderate GOP senators as Snowe, Collins, Specter and Chaffee to do a Jeffords
and become Independents, thus blocking BushCo.'s total control of the U.S.
Congress. It would be a miracle if some or all of them were to bolt the party
-- those GOP moderates stand to benefit from the perqs of being part of the
winning side -- but if they did, it would make it easier for Democrats to head
off the more egregious policies of the Bush Administration. Surely these GOP
moderates are uneasy with (or even revolted by) some of those policies and,
with enough pressure from inside and outside the Senate, they might be willing
to consider such a patriotic move. There is talk amongst some Democrats of
trying to lure them over by promising them key leadership positions and other
blandishments -- not a bad strategy, if a bit obvious.


3. The Supreme Court. One can expect that some of the more outrageous
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act will make their
way to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as early as next year. Given the growing
revolt by conservatives against the more extreme aspects of those bills with
reference to civil liberties and privacy, it is possible that the Supreme
Court, with a conservative majority, might rule that some of those provisions
are 

[pjnews] 2/2 Hopeful Cracks in the Bush Facade

[parallax]

Through a Glass Lightly: 10 Hopeful Cracks in the Bush Facade
http://www.crisispapers.org

continued...

5. The Republican charge. Chuck Baldwin writes in The Republican, a
newsletter for the GOP faithful: Back in August, columnist Paul Craig Roberts
asked the question, 'Is a vote for Republicans a vote for a police state?' The
answer seems to be a resounding yes! The Bush administration seems determined
to turn our country into the most elaborate and sophisticated police state ever
devised.

Things are so bad, Baldwin goes on, that outgoing house majority leader Dick
Armey said that under Bush the [Justice Department] is 'out of control.' In
fact, the conservative congressman is reported to be seriously considering
taking a position with the ACLU in order to help fight the federal government's
usurpation of constitutionally protected liberties. Does that mean one must
leave the Republican Party in order to fight for liberty? Maybe so...The
tyrannical tendencies of old King George III of England cannot hold a candle to
the Machiavellian machinations of King George XLIII of the United States.
Unfortunately, there are few Paul Reveres around to sound an alarm. Unless
contemporary patriots act quickly, Republicans, not Democrats, will be the ones
that ultimately dismantle our constitution and trample our liberties.

Again, this invective was not spewed by the partisan enemies of the Bush
Administration, but by a fellow Republican, thoroughly angered by his
realization that his beloved party has been hijacked by far-right extremists,
hell bent for leather to turn this country into the exact opposite of what
small-government conservatives have been supporting for decades. Grounds for
hope. 


6. Kissinger. This one is a bit convoluted, so hang with me here. It would
appear on the surface that Bush appointing Kissinger to chair the blue-ribbon
commission on how 9/11 happened means the results will be a whitewash for
BushCo. The ex-Secretary of State  National Security Advisor -- with blood
all over his hands for his policies, and notoriously secretive in defending all
regimes from public scrutiny -- is regarded as a Bush toady who will see no
evil and report no evil in terms of what the Bush Administration knew and when
they knew it, and why they did nothing to protect American citizens from the
coming terrorist attackers on 9/11. 

But one friend suggests the following, and though it's hard to swallow, it is a
possibility. The shorthand version is: payback. Kissinger, in this reading, is
not totally Bush's man. Kissinger, who is like an elephant that never forgets,
may want to revenge himself on old enemies, most notably Rumsfeld and, perhaps
subconsciously, even the Bush family. And so, with his own private resentments
active, and with Democratic vice-chairman George Mitchell prodding him from the
sidelines, Kissinger -- anxious to resurrect his image from that of potential
war-criminal back to the days of the brilliant, courageous Nobel Prize-winning
statesman -- may let some of the dirt reach the light of day.

If and when that smelly truth hits the fan, watch out! The American people,
even in their terrorist-fright, would not take kindly to leaders who, to
further their own political agenda, chose inaction in the face of knowledge of
what was coming -- leading to 3000 innocent American civilians dying. Out of
that kind of rage and disappointment are impeachment movements born.


7. Town Hall politics. BushCo. are trying to make war with Iraq an
inevitability, a fait accompli, a juggernaut that supposedly can't be stopped
by anyone, not allies, not the American citizenry. To accomplish this end
domestically, they pushed the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act
through Congress. But in town after town, city after city -- 22 at last count,
and 40 more pending -- municipal governments are voting not to recognize the
validity of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the feds.

As Nat Hentoff reports about the growth of the work of these Bill of Rights
Defense Committees, by and large these resolutions are similar to the one
passed unanimously by the Northampton City Council on May 2, 2002, which
required that:

Local law enforcement continue to preserve residents' freedom of speech,
religion, assembly and privacy; rights to counsel and due process in judicial
proceedings; and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures even if
requested or authorized to infringe upon these rights by federal law
enforcement acting under new powers granted by the USA Patriot Act or orders of
the Executive Branch. 

Furthermore, Federal and state law enforcement officials acting within the
City are asked to 'work in accordance with the policies of the Northampton
Police Department . . . by not engaging in or permitting detentions without
charges or [using] racial profiling in law enforcement.' 

Also, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and Massachusetts State police 

[pjnews] US Ignores Saudi Human Rights Violations

[parallax]

For Bush to say that Islam is a peaceful religion is insipid. Bush claims his 
own war policies are peaceful, he calls Sharon a man of peace. Religions have 
been used for peace and war, for liberation and oppression. While we have some 
supporters of Bush claiming that Christianity is superior to Islam because it 
is more peaceful, these same individuals advocate massive aggression. Bush 
claims that Jesus is his great influence even as he militarizes the United 
States on an unprecedented global scale.  This is precisely the type of 
hypocrisy which Jesus derided.

-Sam Husseini, Institute for Public Accuracy

--

Between the Lines QA:
A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints on national and international 
issues under-reported in mainstream media

U.S.-Saudi Relationship Ignores the Oil-Rich Kingdom's Repression and Human 
Rights Violations

Interview with As'ad AbuKhalil, 
author of forthcoming book, The House of Bush and the House of Saud, 
conducted by Scott Harris 

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, where 15 of the 19 men who
hijacked three U.S. planes were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich
kingdom has come under close scrutiny. The fact that Al Qaeda terror
network mastermind Osama bin Laden is a member of one of Saudi Arabia's
most prominent families has also contributed to new inquiries into Saudi
terror connections. 

But because of the strategic importance of Saudi Arabia, which possesses
the single largest reserves of oil in the world, successive American
presidents have been hesitant to criticize the Saudi monarchy, its
government's repressive policies and its officially sanctioned religious
intolerance. In the post-9/11 period, the Bush family's positive
personal and business relationship with members of the Royal Saudi
family has added additional conflicts of interest in formulating U.S.
policies to effectively confront the roots of terrorism. 

Recent unconfirmed reports alleging that the U.S. Saudi ambassador's
wife had funneled money to 9/11 hijackers underscores the strains now
apparent in this once strong relationship. Between The Lines' Scott
Harris spoke with As'ad AbuKhalil, associate political science professor
at California State University and author of the forthcoming book, The
House of Bush and the House of Saud. Professor AbuKhalil explains why
he feels the U.S. must dramatically transform its relationship with the
Saudis if our nation is serious about applying one standard in
challenging oppression and supporting human rights. 

As'ad AbuKhalil: There has always been a very close association between
the government, the elite of the United States and the elite of Saudi
Arabia -- a certain kinship between the royal family and the so-called
royal families of the United States who have ruled over. One of the
things I point out is that there are so many paradoxes about this
relationship. They tell us that they are based on shared values and one
wonders what these are -- unless they are speaking about religious
intolerance, misogyny, extremism and sexism that prevails in much of
Saudi Arabia.  The president of the United States, despite the negative
press of Saudi Arabia in this country, assured the crown prince in a
phone interview that there is a permanent eternal friendship between the
two nations.

While there is now sudden attention to the record of the royal family in
funding, financing and supporting some elements of fundamentalist,
extremist Islam, the United States has a similar joint effort in that
regard. For much of the recent history of the Cold War, the United
States, through the CIA and the Defense Department worked hand in hand
with the royal family to support, sponsor and arm extremist,
fundamentalist Islam all in the hope of undermining the powers of
secularism and socialism in the Middle East. In many ways, you cannot
open the files of the responsibility of Saudi Arabia in the support for
the Islamic extremism from which emerged Osama bin Laden, without paying
some attention to the same record by the U.S. government.

Between The Lines: Why has the Bush administration gone out of its way
to placate the Saudi royal family? There are many obvious answers to
that question, including the word petroleum.

As'ad AbuKhalil: Well, it's not only about oil, however. Oil is a big
factor. But not only this government, Bush, as well as Clinton, as well
as Bush before him, as well as Reagan, Carter, everybody -- they have
had an extremely deferential, respectful relationship with the royal
family because they are basically obedient clients of the United States.
They do what they are told, and most importantly, they provide the
United States with cheap oil and they play an extremely pro-American
role within the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) and
for that, they are rewarded with the kind of praise and deferential
treatment that they receive. 

Between The Lines: What should American citizens be concerned about in
terms of 

[pjnews] An Open Letter to Americans

[parallax]

From: C A Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Letter from Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:13:48 + 

Open Letter to the People of the United States of America.

Dear Sisters, Brothers, Neighbours, Cousins, Friends:

We are residents of Peterborough, Ontario, a medium-sized Canadian city. Like
you, we are concerned about the threat of war which casts a huge shadow across
the approaching season of peace and brotherhood. We worry about our young men
and women who may be sent to serve in any conflict, and we feel premature grief
for the families of those who will not return. 

We also grieve for the parents of little ones in Iraq who have lost precious
children because of the sanctions which our countries continue to impose on
that devastated land. We feel guilt that an epidemic of childhood cancers and
terrible birth defects has been attributed to the l20 tons of Uranium-238
(D.U.) munitions used during the Gulf War,since most of that uranium originally
came from Canada. 

It is never justified to punish the innocent. Certainly there can be no
justification for killing 1/2 million helpless children because their country
is dominated by a brutal dictator whom our nations supported in the past, even
as he used weapons of mass destruction against Iranians and Kurds. 

Harper's Magazine, in its November 2002 issue, has called the sanctions a
weapon of mass destruction. They are crippling the middle class, which has
always been the major stronghold of opposition to Hussein. People of Iraqi
background in our community advise us that the most effective way to end the
rule of Hussein (and any abusive leader who might succeed him) would be to end
the sanctions, provide support to the Iraqi middle class and let the Iraqi
people remove Hussein from power and determine their own future. 

At the beginning of the Gulf War, Prfesident Bush Sr. stated emphatically, Our
quarrel is not with the people of Iraq. Still we continue to cause the deaths
of 3,000 children under five years of age a month. We invite you to join with
us in asking our respective governments to bring an end to this slaughter of
the innocent by lifting the sanctions and sending relief and medical supplies
to save the lives of Iraq's dying children. Then we can begin the process of
helping the inocent suffering civilians to rebuild their lives, reactivate the
opposition which will topple the tyrant, and determine their own destiny by
democratic means. 

We send you our best wishes for a New Year blessed with brotherhood and peace. 
Sincerely, 
Carol Winter and Members of Kawartha Ploughshares, 
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

Contacts: Carol Winter (705) 745-9l50 or Dr. Joyce Barrett (705) 743-024l.

[pjnews] Don't Buy Me Gap

[parallax]

Holiday Season of Conscience against sweatshop abuses

This holiday season, communities across the country will be marching to bring a 
sense of conscience to the holiday shopping season: demanding an end to 
sweatshops and child labor and holding companies accountable for their abuse of 
workers.

In factory after factory--in Bangladesh, El Salvador, Indonesia, Cambodia, 
Mexico and southern Africa--workers making Gap clothes have reported beatings 
from supervisors, desperately low wages, unsafe working conditions and harsh 
repression when they stand up for their rights.  This holiday season, join 
hundreds of thousands of concerned people across the country in helping Gap 
workers fight back. Tell the Gap that you are taking Gap products off your 
holiday list this year. And most important, share this message with everyone 
you know!

First, take one minute right now to send a message to Gap executives by 
clicking on the link below.
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/gapsweatshops/nqo7td3

Second, e-mail your friends and family to spread the word. Tell them: Don't 
Buy Me Gap This Holiday Season, and ask them to forward this e-mail message to 
everyone on their e-mail lists this holiday.

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/gapsweatshops/forward/nqo7td3 

These two simple steps can make a difference, as millions of working families 
say No! to Gap this year. 

For more information on Gap and sweatshops, visit http://www.behindthelabel.org

[pjnews] 100+ religious leaders arrested at UN

[parallax]

100+ religious leaders arrested at UN

From: Robert Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject:  100+ religious leaders arrested at UN

A Sacred Day in New York (12/10/02)

Submitted to Portside by Chris Vaeth

Today the faith-based revolt against the impending war in Iraq poured out of
hallowed halls and into the streets. Joining people in 120 other cities and
towns under the b! anner of United for Peace, New York's religious leaders
celebrated International Human Rights Day by bearing witness to the poverty and
suffering of those both in Iraq and at home. Before the day's end, the mass
arrest of interfaith leadership marked the arrival of still another dimension
of the burgeoning anti-war movement.

The stage seemed to be set by a full-page ad in The New York Times on December
4, placed by the National Council of Churches. President Bush was pictured with
his head bowed in prayer. The caption, reminding the president of his lip
service to his own faith motivations, pleaded to him: Jesus changed your
heart. Now let him change your mind.

While religious communities have long been at the forefront of anti- war
activism, they showed their collective force today. Following an interfaith
vigil in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, more than 100 ministers, imams, rabbis, nuns,
lay leaders, seminarians, a! nd faith-based community organizers blocked the
sidewalk and were arrested in front of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The accused, after being divided by gender, were packed into two holding cells
at the NYPD's 17th Precinct. Among the 60 men in our cage were Rev. Herbert
Daughtry (pastor of Brooklyn's House of the Lord Church), Rev. Luis Barrios
(liberation priest at St. Mary's and San Romero), Ben Cohen (co-founder of Ben
 Jerry's ice cream), Imam Faiz Khan (of the Asma Society), Rev. Peter Laarman
(minister of Judson Memorial Church), and Daniel Ellsberg (publisher of the
Pentagon Papers). While it has so far been impossible to receive reports from
the women's side, it appeared that at least as many women were arrested.

Among the women inside was the director of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union,
Cheri Honkala. She arrived to town yesterday from a month-long, nationwide bus
caravan for econom! ic human rights, to host a Truth Commission on poverty in
front of the United Nations. The coordination of anti-war and anti-poverty
protests was fitting. After all, we were reminded, Saddam Hussein isn't the one
closing welfare centers and cutting off unemployment benefits. The violence
that our government commits abroad is funded by the violence of poverty at
home.

Most in the men's cell wore clerical garb; many were carrying sacred texts; one
smuggled in the Prison Journals of a Priest Revolutionary by Philip Berrigan.
Father Berrigan, a Jesuit priest who spent 11 years of his life in prison for
anti-war civil disobedience, succumbed to cancer last week. His spirit seemed
to hover over the space as the jailed read his words aloud.

The holding cell became a forum for prayer, storytelling, announcements, an
impromptu teach-in, planning for next steps, and loud singing and clapping. An
Episcopal archbishop ! stopped by the precinct to see if the conditions inside
were adequate. One of the jailed ministers responded: We're doing fine. The
problems are out there. Eager to return to daylight, they were nevertheless
experiencing a rare fellowship forged of shared commitment.

The day was, in a sense, a reunion. Many of the seasoned jailed clergy already
knew each other, from their work with Latin American liberation movements, the
Civil Rights Movement, the struggle in Vieques, the Plowshares movement for
disarmament, and more. It was as if they were renewing their vows; they were
recommitting to an old, sacred struggle with some new details, and welcoming
the younger among them.

One of the secular saints inside, Daniel Ellsberg, proudly introduced his 25
year old son, Michael, on this occasion of his first arrest. He told a story of
25 years ago, when baby Michael was only 3 months old. Back then, his father
first pre! sented him to some of the same people in this very cell, saying: I
want you to introduce you to your future co-conspirators. After all that time,
they were meeting again.

Of course, the day's action was not the first step in a movement that is
rapidly gaining momentum, but it was among the first broad and active religious
responses. The protesters followed the lead of 2000 New York City students,
from middle-school to high school and college age, who walked out of school
last week to march against the war. And it anticipates this Saturday's Uptown
March for Peace and Justice, to be led by youth of color from Washington
Heights, Harlem, and the Bronx.

Prior to today'scivil disobedience, Rev. James Lawson, who was responsible for
much of the training in nonviolent resistance during the Civil Rights Movement,
addressed the participants. He admonished that the 

[pjnews] German and US Firms Armed Iraq

[parallax]

Published on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 by the lndependent/UK

Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam:
Baghdad's uncensored report to UN names Western companies alleged to have 
developed its weapons of mass destruction
 
by Tony Paterson in Berlin 
  
Iraq's 11,000-page report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign 
companies, including some from America, Britain, Germany and France, that 
supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, a German 
newspaper said yesterday.

Berlin's left-wing Die Tageszeitung newspaper said it had seen a copy of the 
original Iraqi dossier which was vetted for sensitive information by US 
officials before being handed to the five permanent Security Council members 
two weeks ago. An edited version was passed to the remaining 10 members of the 
Security Council last night.

British officials said the list of companies appeared to be accurate. Eighty 
German firms and 24 US companies are reported to have supplied Iraq with 
equipment and know-how for its weapons programs from 1975 onwards and in some 
cases support for Baghdad's conventional arms program had continued until last 
year.

It is not known who leaked the report, but it could have come from Iraq. 
Baghdad is keen to embarrass the US and its allies by showing the close 
involvement of US, German, British and French firms in helping Iraq develop its 
weapons of mass destruction when the country was a bulwark against the much 
feared spread of Iranian revolutionary fervor to the Arab world.

The list contained the names of long-established German firms such as Siemens 
as well as US multinationals. With government approval, Siemens exported 
machines used to eliminate kidney stones which have a dual use high precision 
switch used to detonate nuclear bombs. Ten French companies were also named 
along with a number of Swiss and Chinese firms. The newspaper said a number of 
British companies were cited, but did not name them.

From about 1975 onwards, these companies are shown to have supplied entire 
complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical know-how for Saddam 
Hussein's program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass 
destruction, the newspaper said. They also supplied rockets and complete 
conventional weapons systems, it added.

The five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States, 
Britain, Russia, France and China – have repeatedly opposed revealing the 
extent of foreign companies' involvement, although a mass of relevant 
information was collected by UN weapons inspectors who visited the country 
between 1991 and 1998. The UN claims that publishing the extent of the 
companies' involvement in Iraq would jeopardize necessary co-operation with 
such firms.

German involvement outstripped that of all the other countries put together, 
the paper said. During the period to 1991, the German authorities permitted 
weapons cooperation with Iraq and in some cases actively encouraged it, 
according to the newspaper which cited German assistance allegedly given to 
Iraq for the development of poison gas used in the 1988 massacre of Kurds in 
northern Iraq. It said that after the massacre America reduced its military 
cooperation with Iraq but German firms continued their activities until the 
Gulf War.

Die Tageszeitung quoted sources close to the US Vice President, Dick Cheney, as 
saying the Bush administration was hoping to prove a German company was 
continuing to co-operate with the Iraqi regime over the supply of equipment 
allegedly useful in the construction of weapons of mass destruction.

American weapons experts have recently voiced concern that the German 
Government has permitted Siemens to sell Baghdad at least eight sophisticated 
medical machines which contain devices that are vital for nuclear weapons. The 
machines, known as lithotripters, use ultrasound to destroy kidney stones in 
patients. However, each machine contains an electronic switch that can be used 
as a detonator in an atomic bomb, according to US experts. Iraq was reported to 
have requested an extra 120 switches as spare parts during the initial 
transaction.

The delivery of the machines was approved by the European Commission and the UN 
because sanctions against Iraq do not apply to medical equipment. Siemens and 
the German Government have insisted that the machines, which are being used in 
northern Iraq under a World Health Organization program, cannot be used to make 
nuclear weapons.

[pjnews] U.S. image on the way down

[parallax]

A global image on the way down:
U.S. is blamed for others' economic and social misery

Brian Knowlton/IHT International Herald Tribune
Thursday, December 5, 2002
 
WASHINGTON The global image of the United States has suffered a dramatic
bruising in the past two years, most seriously in Muslim countries but also
to a surprising extent among many traditional allies, a major new opinion
survey has found. The souring attitudes toward the United States were
matched by broad discontent with world economic and social conditions, the
survey found.

Since 2000, favorability ratings for the United States have fallen in 19
of the 27 countries where trend benchmarks are available,¹¹ said a report
from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center which, in association with the
International Herald Tribune, surveyed 38,000 people in 44 countries in late
summer and early fall.

While majorities in nearly every country supported the U.S.-led war on
terrorism, U.S. threats of war against Iraq appear to have heightened
concerns, recorded in earlier surveys, about an American foreign policy seen
as overly aggressive and insufficiently concerned with the interests of
friends and allies.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, called the breadth of the
U.S. image problem surprising, attributing it in part to the United States¹
status as the world¹s sole superpower. ŒŒWhen you¹re the richest guy on the
block and the most powerful nation on earth, unchallenged, you don¹t have
the natural coalitions that unite you with your allies against your enemy,¹¹
he said.

Tensions were arising with allies, he said, because ŒŒwe don't have a common
enemy to bond us together.¹¹

Reflecting broad discontent based partly in an unusually synchronous global
economic downturn, almost all national publics viewed global fortunes as
drifting lower. Respondents in only 7 of 44 countries judged their national
economies positively. Public issues of chief global concern, in declining
order, were: AIDS and infectious diseases; religious and ethnic hatred;
nuclear weapons; the rich-poor gap; and pollution and environmental
problems.

Other survey findings point to complicated and often conflicted views of the
United States. The downward trend in the U.S. image, fueled by complaints
about foreign policy, business practices and a perceived failure to do
enough to narrow the global rich-poor gap, was offset somewhat by persisting
reserves of goodwill. The United States and its citizens continue to receive
overall positive ratings by majorities in 35 of the 42 countries in which
the question was asked ‹ and there was a surprising rise in U.S.
favorability in Russia. But while many people still admire U.S.
technological achievements and cultural exports, majorities in nearly every
country said they disliked the spread of U.S. influence. Few people, even in
close allies like Canada, Mexico, Britain and Germany, expressed a ŒŒvery
favorable¹¹ opinion of the United States.

Anti-American sentiment was striking in Egypt, one of the largest recipients
of U.S. foreign aid and a country considered pivotal to U.S. policy in the
Middle East. The 6 percent of Egyptians with favorable views of the United
States were outnumbered more than 11-to-1 by those holding unfavorable
views. In Pakistan, which has provided crucial support to the U.S. campaign
in Afghanistan, unfavorable views dominated by about 7 to 1.

Reaction to the war on terror or the U.S. threats to Iraq appeared to propel
some of the sharpest shifts in opinion of the United States. The U.S.
favorability figure in Germany, where the possibility of war on Iraq is so
deeply unpopular that it caused testy relations with the Bush
administration, dropped from nearly 80 percent two years ago to about 60
percent this year; pressure on Indonesia, a populous Muslim country, to
crack down on terrorists may have fueled a 14 percent drop in the U.S.
favorability rating. The numbers plunged in Turkey and Pakistan as well.
But in Russia, which has supported the U.S. crackdown on terror and where a
close personal friendship has evolved between Presidents Vladimir Putin and
George W. Bush, the rise in U.S. favorability rankings has been large, to 61
percent from 37 percent.

Ambivalence to the spread of American culture and values was a recurring
theme in the poll. In Canada, for example, 54 percent of those surveyed said
the spread of American ideas and customs was bad, to 37 percent who found it
good. Yet when asked whether they liked American music, movies and
television, more than 3 in 4 Canadians said they did. Similar contradictions
prevailed in Britain, Germany, France and other countries. Eight in 10
Americans, meanwhile, said that the spread of U.S. ideas and customs was a
good thing. Many people around the world said that the United States did not
adequately consider their countries¹ interests. This was in stark contrast
to Americans¹ solidly held view that the United States does take others¹
interests into 

[pjnews] Peace Movement Gains Momentum

[parallax]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1217-03.htm

A Los Angeles Times poll published yesterday (12/17) found that
two-thirds of Americans believe that Bush has failed to make the case
for war in Iraq. The article says, The overwhelming majority of
respondents -- 90% -- said they do not doubt that Iraq is developing
weapons of mass destruction. But in the absence of new evidence from
U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said
the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war
with Iraq.

THE PEACE MOVEMENT GAINING MOMENTUM 
AMONG AVERAGE AMERICANS
Michelle Ciarrocca, Senior Research Associate

As mentioned above, in a recent poll the Los Angeles Times found that
more than two-thirds of Americans believe that President Bush has failed
to make the case for war with Iraq is justified. This is just one more
indicator of the wave of dissent finally being heard and seen throughout
the United States. At the same time, 30 members of the Iraq Peace Team
-- many of them Americans -- have arrived in Baghdad. The trip was
organized by Voices in the Wilderness.

While the months leading up to the November elections were marked by
the largest anti-war rallies since the height of the anti-Vietnam War
movement, media coverage was scarce. But recently, it has been
heartening to see -- on an almost daily basis in December -- increasing
coverage of the new peace movement. Growing and growing and growing.
People are outraged at the possibility of going to war in Iraq and the
extremes of the USA Patriot Act, a federal law that has broadened the
government's ability to use secret searches, wiretaps and other covert
surveillance techniques in pursuit of terrorists. While the usual
peaceniks have been out and about rallying against Bush's war posturing,
the media is talking about the everyday people joining the movement.
In matter of fact, we know the peace movement has always been everyday
people, but the media is finally taking note and expanding its own
notion of a peace activist. 

One news article commented on the various groups partaking in the
anti-war demonstrations saying, This is what the anti-war movement
looks like -- not just the collection of fringe characters and political
oddballs some news outlets portray. Yet media coverage seems stuck in a
1960s and 1970s Vietnam War-era frame, with journalists confining
themselves to protest stories and visual images reminiscent of those
times. The times (and the portraits) are a changing. 

The Sacramento Bee ran a story on December 5th saying, Anti-War
Protesters are Flowing in From the Mainstream. A headline in the
Sunday, December 15th San Francisco Chronicle read 'Ordinary People'
Join Peace Protests. And the December 10th Washington Post commented on
the new Peace Warriors saying, For now, Anarchists, Socialists,
Quakers, And More Are Marching to the Same Drum. In response to the
anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act, the Los Angeles Times noted the New
Breed of Patriots Speaking Up. And in Ann Arbor, the Michigan Daily
reported on December 3rd the City Council Votes for Anti-War
Resolution. At least two dozen other cities throughout the country have
passed resolutions against the war in Iraq.

The December 10th war protests were timed to coincide with
International Human Rights Day. Here's a sampling of what the various
mainstream papers have been saying about the recent anti-war efforts:

From a morning blockade of a federal building in Chicago to a
lunchtime march to the White House to an evening discussion at a YWCA in
Detroit, a cross-section of activists, celebrities and everyday
Americans held more than 150 events across the country today to oppose a
war with Iraq. Organized by a coalition of more then 70 groups called
United for Peace, the events ranged in attendance from several dozen at
Youngstown, Ohio, and Mineola, NY to several hundred in Santa Fe, NM,
and Oakland, CA. Organizers and participants said the diverse turnout
represented a growing wave of popular dissent, even as the country
inches closer to military action. (New York Times, Dec. 11, 2002)

The extraordinary array of groups questioning the Bush
administration's rationale for an invasion of Iraq includes longtime
radical groups such as the Workers World Party, but also groups not
known for taking stands against the government. There is a labor
movement against the war, led by organizers of the largest unions in the
country; a religious movement against the war, which includes leaders of
virtually every mainstream denomination; a veterans movement against the
war, led by those who fought Iraq in the Persian Gulf a decade ago;
business leaders against the war, led by corporate leaders; an antiwar
movement led by relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2002, attacks; and
immigrant groups against the war. (Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2002)

Who are these new peaceniks, groups and organizations against the war
in Iraq? (Obviously, this is not a complete list, 

[pjnews] Israeli Family Questions Aid to Settlers

[parallax]

In Grief, Israeli Family Questions Army Aid to Settlers
December 18, 2002 
By IAN FISHER 
NY Times

HADERA, Israel, Dec. 17 - She refused to cry. But there was no masking the rage
that Yaffa Yaacoby aimed at the four young men, one bearing a submachine gun,
who came to her house today to pay their respects to her dead daughter. 

Tell me, she asked the men, all members of a small settlement near the Tomb
of the Patriarchs in the West Bank city of Hebron, is it worth it - the cave,
the holy places - for my daughter and the other people who died? I speak from
my heart. Look at me. I am only 40 years old. Today and every day after this, I
have to wake up and face the fact that I buried my daughter. 

Do you realize there isn't a piece of land worth these lives? 

Settlers vehemently dispute this view, saying that the West Bank is both their
biblical birthright and a buffer of security against Arab states. They argue
that settlements are an investment in holding on to that land, and therefore
that an army presence is necessary and justified. 

Today, in grief, this central argument in Israeli society played itself out in
a living room here as the Yaacoby family sat shiva in mourning for their oldest
daughter, Keren, 19, killed last Thursday with a fellow soldier while guarding
the contentious Jewish settlement. 

Keren, shot by Palestinian gunmen, was the first woman in Israel's Army to die
in combat since fighting broke out anew in September 2000. 

But her death has received intense news media coverage here, primarily because
her family has been outspoken in asking why, exactly, Israeli soldiers like
their daughter are guarding the settlement of only 450 religious and well-armed
Jews, perched dangerously amid some 150,000 Palestinians in Hebron. 

Many left-leaning Israelis argue that all the Jewish settlements dotted around
the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip are a block to an ultimate peace
settlement, as well as an unnecessary danger to the Israeli soldiers who guard
them. The settlements, they argue, also stand as a daily provocation to the
Palestinians. 

The four settlers tried today to contest such opinions. They sought to convince
Keren's family, over graciously offered cups of coffee, of their point of view.
They explained that they see themselves as serving the interests of the Jewish
people by expanding Israel's reach, in their case astride the cave they believe
Abraham bought to entomb himself and his family. 

This is the land of Israel, one said. 

Keren's father, Yigal, 46, snapped back. So are the Euphrates and the Tigris,
he said, referring to rivers that flow through modern-day Turkey, Syria and
Iraq. Go live there. 

The feelings of Israelis about the settlements are complex, and no less so for
this family, whose members say they do not oppose all settlements. But they are
adamantly against the Israeli Army guarding the isolated Hebron settlement,
where last month 12 Israeli soldiers, border police officers and security
guards were killed in an ambush only yards from where Keren and her colleague,
Maor Chalfon, died. 

Settlers have often reacted to the deaths of soldiers who guard them by
demanding further restrictions on Palestinians or by expanding their
settlements to memorialize the dead. But in this case, the Yaacoby family might
prove to be an obstacle. Mr. Yaacoby is the local chairman of the Shinui
political party, which has gained popularity in recent years with its
opposition to special legal privileges, like exemption from military service,
for religious Israelis, many of them settlers. 

I feel they sacrificed my daughter on the altar of the fanatic Jews in
Hebron, Mr. Yaacoby said. I feel the army must go out of Hebron and leave the
settlers to protect themselves. It may be the Holy Land, but it's a very
dangerous land. 

Since the 12 people died last month, tensions in Hebron have been running at a
high pitch. The settlers have erected new buildings on the site of that attack,
and the government is also planning to raze a dozen or more Palestinian houses
to build a protected walkway from there to the larger Jewish settlement of
Qiryat Arba, less than half a mile away. 

It was near there, in a curve in the road, that Keren Yaacoby was pulling guard
duty with her friend, Mr. Chalfon, in a concrete bunker near a row of
Palestinian houses on Thursday night. Just after 8 p.m., the two stepped out of
the bunker, according to the military, and shots rained down from the top floor
of a nearby building. Mr. Chalfon died on the way to the hospital. Ms. Yaacoby
died from bullet wounds to her neck. 

The Israeli military believes that there were two gunmen. Both escaped. 

Today, the Yaacoby family sat shiva in their house - in which by tradition
pictures and mirrors were removed from the white walls - both celebrating
Keren's short life and puzzling over it a little, too. 

The oldest of three girls, she grew up in a house where, the family members
said, they allowed her 

[pjnews] Hundreds of Arab Men Detained

[parallax]

Published on Thursday, December 19, 2002 by the Los Angeles Times  

Hundreds Are Detained After Visits to INS
Thousands protest arrests of Mideast boys and men who complied with order to 
register.
 
by Megan Garvey, Martha Groves and Henry Weinstein 
  
Hundreds of men and boys from Middle Eastern countries were arrested by federal 
immigration officials in Southern California this week when they complied with 
orders to appear at INS offices for a special registration program.

The arrests drew thousands of people to demonstrate Wednesday in Los Angeles. 
 
Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesmen refused Wednesday to say how 
many people the agency had detained, what the specific charges were or how many 
were still being held. But officials speaking anonymously said they would not 
dispute estimates by lawyers for detainees that the number across Southern 
California was 500 to 700. In Los Angeles, up to one-fourth of those who showed 
up to register were jailed, lawyers said. 

The number of people arrested in this region appears to have been considerably 
larger than elsewhere in the country, perhaps because of the size of the 
Southland's Iranian population. Monday's registration deadline applied to males 
16 and older from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria. Men from 13 other 
nations, mostly in the Mideast and North Africa, are required to register next 
month. 

Many of those arrested, according to their lawyers, had already applied for 
green cards and, in some instances, had interviews scheduled in the near 
future. Although they had overstayed their visas, attorneys argue, their 
clients had already taken steps to remedy the situation and were following the 
regulations closely. 

These are the people who've voluntarily gone to the INS, said Mike S. Manesh 
of the Iranian American Lawyers Assn. If they had anything to do with 
terrorism, they wouldn't have gone. 

Immigration officials acknowledged Wednesday that many of those taken into 
custody this week have status-adjustment applications pending that have not yet 
been acted on. 

The vast majority of people who are coming forward to register are currently 
in legal immigration status, said local INS spokeswoman Virginia Kice. The 
people we have taken into custody ... are people whose non-immigrant visas have 
expired. 

The large number of Iranians among the detainees has angered many in the area's 
Iranian communities, who organized a demonstration Wednesday at the federal 
building in Westwood. 

At the rally, which police officials estimated drew about 3,000 protesters at 
its peak, signs bore such sentiments as What Next? Concentration Camps? 
and Detain Terrorists Not Innocent Immigrants. 

The arrests have generated widespread publicity, mostly unfavorable, in the 
Middle East, said Khaled Dawoud, a correspondent for Al Ahram, one of Egypt's 
largest dailies. He questioned State Department official Charlotte Beers about 
the detentions Wednesday after a presentation she made at the National Press 
Club in Washington. Egyptians are not included in the registration requirement. 

Beers, undersecretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs, was 
presenting examples of a U.S. outreach campaign for the Middle East, which 
includes images of Muslims leading happy lives here. Dawoud asked how that 
image squared with the humiliating arrests in recent days. 

I don't think there is any question that the change in visa policy is going to 
be seen by some as difficult and, indeed -- what was the word you used? -- 
humiliating, Beers said. But, she added, President Bush has said repeatedly 
that he considers his No. 1 ... job to be the protection of the American 
people. 

Relatives and lawyers of those arrested locally challenge that rationale for 
the latest round of detentions. 

One attorney, who said he saw a 16-year-old pulled from the arms of his crying 
mother, called it madness to believe that the registration requirements would 
catch terrorists. 

His mother is 6 1/2 months pregnant. They told the mother he is never going to 
come home -- she is losing her mind, said attorney Soheila Jonoubi, who spent 
Wednesday amid the chaos of the downtown INS office attempting to determine the 
status of her clients. 

Jonoubi said that the mother has permanent residence status and that her 
husband, the boy's stepfather, is a U.S. citizen. The teenager came to the 
country in July on a student visa and was on track to gain permanent residence, 
the lawyer said. 

Many objected to the treatment of those who showed up for the registration. INS 
ads on local Persian radio stations and in other ethnic media led many to 
expect a routine procedure. Instead, the registration quickly became the 
subject of fear as word spread that large numbers of men were being arrested. 

Lawyers reported crowded cells with some clients forced to rest standing up, 
some shackled and moved to other locations in the night, frigid conditions in 

[pjnews] Washington maneuvers toward Venezuelan coup

[parallax]

“I believe that the US will not take any decision on acting in Iraq until the 
situation in Venezuela is resolved,” former Venezuelan energy minister Calderon 
Berti told the Brazilian daily Jornal do Brasil Wednesday. Berti, who also 
served as president of PDVSA, said it would be too great a risk to launch a war 
in the Persian Gulf while Venezuela, the world’s fifth largest petroleum 
exporter, was unable to produce. ... Thus, in preparation for a war against 
Iraq promoted on the pretext of removing a dictator, the Bush administration 
may decide to oversee a military coup in Venezuela. In both countries, the key 
unspoken issue is oil.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/vene-d19.shtml

Washington maneuvers toward Venezuelan coup
By Bill Vann
19 December 2002

With an employer-organized lockout in its third week, the Bush administration 
is maneuvering with the Venezuelan right wing in an attempt to topple the 
country’s elected president, Hugo Chavez.

Washington has expressed mounting concern over the political crisis in 
Venezuela, which supplies approximately 14 percent of US oil imports. The 
shutdown of the country’s state-owned oil corporation, Petroleos de Venezuela 
(PDVSA), has reduced production to a trickle and sent world crude oil prices to 
over $31 a barrel, a two-year high.

On December 13 the White House issued a statement effectively solidarizing 
itself with the demands advanced by the alliance of Venezuelan employers, the 
US-funded trade union bureaucracy and the political parties of the country’s 
oligarchy. “The only peaceful and politically viable path to moving out of the 
crisis is through the holding of early elections,” the statement said.

Under Venezuela’s constitution, Chavez is to remain in power until the end of 
2006. He could be subject to a recall referendum—in August of 2003 at the 
earliest—provided those seeking to oust him secured sufficient support for such 
a vote. For his term to be cut short, the constitution requires that more 
people vote to remove him in such a referendum than the number who voted to 
place him in power in the last presidential election.

Washington’s undisguised contempt for such constitutional considerations is the 
clearest signal that it is prepared once again to support a right-wing military 
coup, as it did last April when Chavez’s opponents succeeded in ousting him for 
two days. He was returned to power in the wake of a popular uprising in the 
streets of Caracas.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Venezuela’s workers and poor were 
clamoring for the removal of an unpopular US-backed regime through 
extraordinary elections, there is no doubt that the Bush administration would 
be proclaiming the sanctity of constitutional order and denouncing the use 
of “undemocratic” methods.

There are indications of divisions within the Washington establishment over the 
reckless policy being pursued in Venezuela. Some elements fear that by 
continuing to foment right-wing agitation against the current government, the 
Bush administration is plunging the country into civil war.

This week, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer backtracked on the 
administration’s previous statement about early elections, saying that the 
administration had meant to signal its support for an early referendum on 
Chavez’s rule. While such a vote would likewise violate the Venezuelan 
constitution, the shift suggested that at least some in the US government could 
accept something short of Chavez’s immediate overthrow.

For his part, the Venezuelan president has repeatedly promised Washington that 
his government would assure normal and even expanded oil deliveries if a US war 
against Iraq cut off supplies from the Middle East. He has denounced the well-
paid managers of PDVSA for organizing the shutdown of the country’s oil 
facilities, charging them with “sabotage” and accusing them of seeking the 
state corporation’s privatization for their own enrichment.

While the Chavez government has sent troops into oil installations and ordered 
the seizure of idled tankers, it has pointedly stopped short of taking over 
privately owned food producing and distribution companies that have been shut 
down by their owners as part of the anti-government action, drying up vital 
food supplies.

Chavez has made it clear that his populist appeals to Venezuela’s impoverished 
masses need not interfere with trade relations with the US, nor with his 
government’s compliance with the economic prescriptions of the International 
Monetary Fund. But right-wing elements within the Bush administration will not 
forgive him for his ties with Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his earlier denunciation 
of the US war in Afghanistan.

These elements—led by Otto Reich in the State Department and Elliott Abrams in 
the National Security Council—collaborated directly with those who organized 
the abortive April coup. Veterans of the Reagan administration’s 
terrorist “contra” war against 

[pjnews] Venezuela Action Alert

[parallax]

Critical Situation in Venezuela

SF Rally in Support Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution
Coordinated with Actions Nation-wide 

*Please Forward to Allies*

Opposition forces in Venezuela plan to push the country towards civil war by 
marching on the Presidential Palace on Friday. Confrontations such as these 
will only lead to more violence and possibly result in the overthrow of the 
progressive, democratically elected government of President Hugo Chavez Frías.

Please join us as we, the Venezuela Solidarity Group (VSG), send off our second 
delegation to Venezuela in support and solidarity with the people and their 
Bolivarian Process. We are asking all allies and supporters of peace, justice, 
and democracy to come out and show your support at this very critical time. 
This Press Conference/Rally will be in conjunction with other rallies of 
solidarity throughout the US and the world, including Chicago, New York, 
Washington DC, and Paris, France. 


The Venezuela Solidarity Group (VSG) is calling on allies and advocates of 
democracy and justice to do the following:

1. Press Conference/Rally in support of the democratically elected government 
of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela!

Where: Consulate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
311 California St. in San Francisco
When:  Wednesday, December 18, 2002 at 12PM
Bring:   Pots and Pans to Bang for Justice!


2. Oppose United States intervention in Venezuela.


3. Oppose the opposition's efforts to destabilize the government, including the 
corporate media's distorted coverage of events.

4. Support the governmental and international efforts to dialogue with the 
opposition within the framework of the Constitution.


ACTIONS TO TAKE NOW:

*** Call on US State Department to strengthen its position against the 
opposition's tactics of non-cooperation and destabilization.

Secretary of State Colin Powell- 202-647-5291, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere Otto J. Reich- 202-647-5780
Assistant Secretary of State J. Curtis Struble-  202-647-8386


*** Call the Carter Center for Human Rights to support their efforts to promote 
democracy in Venezuela.
Jimmy Carter, The Carter Center- 404-420-5108, [EMAIL PROTECTED]


For more information on how you can get involved, please contact the Venezuela 
Solidarity Group at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Adelante,
Joel Tena
for the Venezuela Solidarity Group


BACKGROUND ON THE CURRENT SITUATION

Venezuela is currently experiencing the longest sustained general strike in its 
history. This strike has been coordinated by the richest sectors of Venezuelan 
society, some of which briefly overthrew the democratically elected government 
of President Hugo Chávez in a violent coup on April 11th of this year, and some 
of which have publicly called for similar unconstitutional measures in the 
current conflict. 

On April 11, the head of the Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce was installed as 
head of the coup government, which was immediately recognized by the US 
government. In fact, US diplomats met several times with opposition leaders in 
the months leading up to the coup, suggesting knowledge of subsequent events. 
Furthermore, US government monies were sent to opposition groups in the year 
preceding the coup. The State Department's Office of the Inspector General, in 
its evaluation of US involvement in the April coup, wrote that these actions 
may have been seen [by the coup plotters] as lending support to their efforts, 
notwithstanding our ritualistic denunciations of undemocratic and 
unconstitutional means.

The Bush Administration and the Organization of American States (OAS) must 
declare that there would be no normal commercial and diplomatic relations with 
a coup-installed government, and that they will not use intervention in the 
affairs of the democratically elected government of Venezuela.

For more information on Venezuela, go to http://www.zmag.org/venezuela_watch.htm

[pjnews] US Tore 8000 pages out of Iraq Dossier

[parallax]

Published on Sunday, December 22, 2002 by The Sunday Herald [UK]

America Tore Out 8000 Pages of Iraq Dossier  
by James Cusick and Felicity Arbuthnot 
  
THE United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page 
dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitized version to the 10 non-
permanent members of the United Nations security council. 

The full extent of Washington's complete control over who sees what in the 
crucial Iraqi dossier calls into question the allegations made by US Secretary 
of State Colin Powell that 'omissions' in the document constituted a 'material 
breach' of the latest UN resolution on Iraq. 
 
Last week, Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan accepted that it 
was 'unfortunate' that his organization had allowed the US to take the only 
complete dossier and edit it. He admitted 'the approach and style were wrong' 
and Norway, a member of the security council, says it is being treated like 
a 'second-class country'. 

Although Powell called the Iraqi dossier a 'catalogue of recycled information 
and flagrant omissions', the non-permanent members of the security council will 
have no way of testing the US claims for themselves. This will be crucial if 
the US and the UK go back to the security council seeking explicit 
authorization for war on Iraq if breaches of resolution 1441 are confirmed when 
the weapons inspectors -- this weekend investigating 10 sites in Iraq, 
including an oil refinery south of Baghdad -- deliver their report to the UN 
next month. 

A UN source in New York said: 'The questions being asked are valid. What did 
the US take out? And if weapons inspectors are supposed to be checking against 
the dossier's content, how can any future claim be verified. In effect the US 
is saying trust us, and there are many who just will not.' 

Current and former UN diplomats are said to be livid at what some have called 
the 'theft' of the Iraqi document by the US. Hans von Sponeck, the former 
assistant general secretary of the UN and the UN's humanitarian co- ordinator 
in Iraq until 2000, said: 'This is an outrageous attempt by the US to mislead.' 

Although the five permanent members of the security council -- the US, the UK, 
France, China and Russia -- have had access to the complete version, there was 
agreement that the US be allowed to edit the dossier on the ground that its 
contents were 'risky' in terms of security on weapons proliferation. 

Yesterday, US President George W Bush announced that a planned trip to several 
African countries, scheduled for January, had been canceled. As he gave the go-
ahead to double the current 50,000 US troops deployed in the Gulf by early 
January, he used his weekly radio address to say that 'the men and women in the 
[US] military, many of whom will spend Christmas at posts and bases far from 
home' were the only thing that stood between 'Americans and grave danger'. 

An equally pessimistic view of the immediate future came from the Vatican. Pope 
John Paul II promised the Catholic church would not cease to have its voice 
heard and would offer prayers 'in the face of this horizon bathed in blood'. 

Despite the prayers, the US military isn't expecting peace. Yesterday, General 
Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, was asked if US forces 
were ready if called upon immediately. General Myers simply said: 'You bet.' 

The language coming from Baghdad was equally gung ho. The Iraqi newspaper 
Babel, owned by Saddam Hussein's eldest son Uday, likened US and UK political 
leaders to ruthless Mongol conquerors of the past.

[pjnews] List of U.S. companies that helped arm Iraq

[parallax]

http://www.democracynow.org/Zumach.htm 

Top-secret Iraq Report Reveals U.S. Corporations, Gov't Agencies and
Nuclear Labs Helped Illegally Arm Iraq

Hewlett   Packard,   Dupont,   Honeywell   and   other  major  U.S. 
corporations,  as  well  as  governmental  agencies  including  the 
Department  of  Defense and the nation's nuclear labs, all illegally helped  
Iraq  to build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

On Wednesday, December 18, Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach broke  
the story on the US national listener-sponsored radio and television  
show  Democracy  Now! [ed. note- and our show, Pacifica's Peacewatch].
Zumach's Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung  
plans to  soon publish a full list of companies and nations who have  
aided Iraq. The paper first reported on Tuesday that German and U.S.  
companies had extensive ties to Iraq but didn't list names.

Zumach  obtained  top-secret portions of Iraq's 12,000-page weapons 
declaration  that  the  US  had  redacted  from  the  version  made 
available to the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very 
substantial  support  especially  to the biological weapons program but  
also to the missile and nuclear weapons program, Zumach said. Pretty  
much  everything  was  illegal  in the case of nuclear and biological  
weapons.  Every  form  of cooperation and supplies was outlawed in the 
1970s.

The  list  of  U.S.  corporations  listed  in Iraq's report include 
Hewlett  Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, 
International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.

Zumach also said the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Commerce, and  
Agriculture  quietly  helped arm Iraq. U.S. government nuclear weapons  
laboratories  Lawrence  Livermore,  Los  Alamos and Sandia trained  
traveling  Iraqi  nuclear  scientists and gave non-fissile material for 
construction of a nuclear bomb.

There has never been this kind of comprehensive layout and listing like  
we  have  now  in the Iraqi report to the Security Council so this  is  
quite  new  and  this  is  especially  new  for  the U.S. involvement,  
which  has  been  even  more suppressed in the public domain and the U.S. 
population, Zumach said.

The  names  of  companies were supposed to be top secret. Two weeks ago 
Iraq provided two copies of its full 12,000-page report, one to the  
International  Atomic  Energy Agency in Geneva, and one to the United 
Nations in New York. Zumach said the U.S. broke an agreement of the 
Security Council and blackmailed Colombia, which at the time was presiding 
over the Council, to take possession of the UN's only copy.  The U.S. then 
proceeded to make copies of the report for the other  four  permanent  
Security  Council nations, Britain, France, Russia  and  China. Only 
yesterday did the remaining members of the Security  Council  receive 
their copies. By then, all references to foreign companies had been 
removed.

According  to  Zumach,  only Germany had more business ties to Iraq than  
the  U.S.  As  many as 80 German companies are also listed in Iraq's  
report.  The  paper  reported  that  some  German companies continued to 
do business with Iraq until last year.



LIST OF BUSINESSES expunged by US from dossier
http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck 

USA

1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A)
13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

[pjnews] Christmas Nightmare for Western Shoshone

[parallax]

For additional information please contact the Western Shoshone Defense
Project at 775-468-0230.


http://www.insightmag.com/news/342493.html

The Nightmare Before Christmas
Posted Dec. 23, 2002
By Martin Edwin Andersen 

For two elderly American Indian sisters who have fought the federal government 
for 30 years for the right to graze their livestock on traditional Indian 
lands, a new notice that takes effect Christmas Day is both Dickensian and 
draconian. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is threatening to impound more of their 
animals and, in so doing, ruin their livelihood. Scrooge and the Ghost of 
Christmas Yet to Come apparently have morphed into bureaucrats in cowboy boots. 
Despite the outcry from both Indian-rights activists and international human-
rights organizations, the feds seem bent on yet another inflammatory and 
unnecessary clash between the BLM and Nevada's Western Shoshone tribe.

On Dec. 17, two government agents served Carrie Dann, 70, and her sister Mary, 
80, with a notice of unauthorized use of federal lands and ordered them to 
remove their livestock -- some 250 cattle and 1,000 horses -- from the 
premises. Already in September, 40 heavily armed federal agents backed by a 
helicopter seized 227 of the Danns' cattle and sold them at public auction.

The government claims that the Danns' livestock are overgrazing the range, 
located about 60 miles southeast of Elko, Nev., damaging land also used by five 
ranchers with valid use permits. The BLM also alleges that the Danns owe 
grazing fees of almost $3 million -- representing three decades of accumulated 
arrears. However, the Danns say they have a right to pasture their animals on 
the federal land under the terms of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley.

It's one heck of a Christmas present from the U.S. government for a couple of 
70-year-old women and for the Western Shoshone, said Steve Tullberg, 
Washington director of the Indian Law Resource Center, one of the groups 
representing the Danns.

A month after the September raid, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
(IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS) weighed in on the long-
simmering dispute. For the first time in a case involving Indian rights in the 
United States, the IACHR found that the treatment of the Danns violated 
international human-rights laws. 

In its ruling, the IACHR agreed with the Danns that the United States used 
illegitimate means to gain control of the American Indians' ancestral lands. In 
taking control of the disputed territory, the IACHR said, the federal 
government violated the equal-protection, fair-trial and right-to-private-
property clauses of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. 

The IACHR demanded that the U.S. government return the Danns' confiscated 
cattle and halt further actions against the sisters pending review of the case. 
However, as the Danns' cattle were sold at auction, a BLM spokesman said 
flatly: The OAS has no jurisdiction here. 

The Western Shoshone have refused to pay fees for grazing their animals on land 
they consider part of their birthright. Some 26 million acres in Nevada alone 
are under dispute, rangeland the Indians say they never legally turned over to 
the federal government. 

At a time when all Americans face the bitter prospect of a protracted war on 
terrorism, the federal government needlessly is presenting an ugly face both at 
home and abroad by spurning the Western Shoshones' efforts to engage it in good-
faith talks on land issues. The Western Shoshone communities, noted 
spokesperson Fermina Stevens, have worked diligently to identify areas and 
make proposals to the U.S. [government]. However, to date, we have received no 
commitment or acknowledgement of our land or treaty rights from the United 
States.

They [the U.S. government] have been asked to provide documents regarding the 
bill of sale or cession of land -- apparently they have no such documents. The 
U.S. is being unfair and unjust with regard to addressing the issue of Western 
Shoshone land in order that we can provide for ourselves, culturally and 
economically.

Holiday wishes of peace on earth and good will to men should extend to the 
Western Shoshone, too. Anti-American propagandists abroad shouldn't be given 
their best material by thoughtless and ungenerous acts taken by our government 
against its own people.

[pjnews] 2/2 MLK Christmas Sermon on Peace

[parallax]

A Christmas Sermon on Peace
Martin Luther King
December 1967

...continued...


There are three words for “love” in the Greek New Testament; one is the
word “eros.”  Eros is a sort of esthetic, romantic love.  Plato used to
talk about it a great deal in his dialogues, the yearning of the soul for
the realm of the divine.  And there is and can always be something
beautiful about eros, even in its expressions of romance.  Some of the most
beautiful love in all the world has been expressed this way.

Then the Greek language talks about “philia,” which is another word for
love, and philia is a kind of intimate love between personal friends.  This
is the kind of love you have for those people that you get along with well,
and those whom you like on this level you love because you are loved. 
Then the Greek language has another word for love, and that is the word
“agape.”  Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive good will toward all
men.  Agape is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return.

Theologians would say that it is the love of God operating in the human
heart.  When you rise to love on this level, you love all men not because
you like them, not because their ways appeal to you, but you love them
because God loves them.  This is what Jesus meant when he said, “Love you
enemies.”  And I’m happy that he didn’t say, “Like you enemies,” because
there are some people that I find it pretty difficult to like.  Liking is
an affectionate emotion, and I can’t like anybody who would bomb my home.
I can’t like anybody who would exploit me.  I can’t like anybody who would
trample over me with injustices.  I can’t like them.  I can’t like anybody
who threatens to kill me day in and day out.  But Jesus reminds us that
love is greater than liking.  Love is understanding, creative, redemptive
good will toward all men.  And I think this is where we are, as a people,
in our struggle for racial justice.  We can’t ever give up.  We must work
passionately and unrelentingly for first-class citizenship.  We must never
let up in our determination to remove every vertige of segregation and
discrimination from our nation, but we shall not in the process relinquish
our privilege to love.

I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and I’ve seen hate on the
faces of too many sheriffs, too many white citizens’ councilors, and too
many Klansmen of the South to want to hate, myself; and every time I see
it, I say to myself, hate it too great a burden to bear.  Somehow we must
be able to stand up before our most bitter opponents and say: “We shall
match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure
suffering.  We will meet your physical force with soul force.  Do to us
what you will and we will still love you.  We cannot in all good conscience
obey your unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because
non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation
with good, and so throw us in jail and we will still love you.  Bomb our
homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still
love you.  Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities
at the midnight hour and drag us out on some wayside road and leave us
half-dead as you beat us, and we will still love you.  Send your propaganda
agents around the country, and make it appear that we are not fit,
culturally and otherwise, for integration, and we’ll still love you.  But
be assured that we’ll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day
we will win our freedom.  We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we
will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the
process, and our victory will be a double victory.”

If there is to be peace on earth and good will toward men, we must finally
believe in the ultimate morality of the universe, and believe that all
reality hinges on moral foundations.  Something must remind us of this as
we once again stand in the Christmas season and think of the Easter season
simultaneously, for the two somehow go together.  Christ came to show us
the way.  Men love darkness rather than the light, and they crucified him,
and there on Good Friday on the cross it was still dark, but then Easter
came, and Easter is an eternal reminder of the fact that the truth-crushed
earth will rise again.  Easter justifies Carlyle in saying, “No lie can
live forever.”  And so this is our faith, as we continue to hope for peace
on earth and good will toward men: let us know that in the process we have
cosmic companionship.

In 1963, on a sweltering August afternoon, we stood in Washington, D.C.,
and talked to the nation about many things. Toward the end of that
afternoon, I tried to talk to the nation about a dream that I had had, and
I must confess to you today that not long after talking about that dream I
started seeing it turn into a nightmare. I remember the first time I saw
that dream turn into a nightmare, just a few weeks after I had talked about
it. It 

[pjnews] The Secret War On Iraq

[parallax]

The Secret War On Iraq
By John Pilger

The Mirror 19 December 2002

THE American and British attack on Iraq has already begun. While the Blair
government continues to claim in Parliament that no final decision has been
taken, Royal Air Force and US fighter bombers have secretly changed tactics
and escalated their patrols over Iraq to an all-out assault on both military
and civilian targets.

American and British bombing of Iraq has increased by 300 per cent. Between
March and November, according to Ministry of Defence replies to MPs, the RAF
dropped more than 124 tonnes of bombs. 

[pjnews] Timid Gulf War Media to Make a Comeback

[parallax]

Between the Lines QA 
A weekly column featuring progressive viewpoints 
on national and international issues
under-reported in mainstream media

U.S. Media's Timid Role in 1991 Gulf War
Likely to Repeat in Any New Conflict with Iraq

Listen in RealAudio:
http://66.175.55.251/macarthur122702.ram

Interview with John MacArthur, 
publisher of Harper's Magazine, 
conducted by Scott Harris 

Since the White House campaign to make Iraq public enemy number one
was launched this summer, the nation has been riveted on the Bush
administration's charge that Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of
weapons of mass destruction justifies a U.S. war against his nation. The
corporate broadcast media seemingly welcomed the talk of war, creating
news programs, elaborate sets, logos and theme music dedicated to the
topic of a future conflict with Iraq. 

In reviewing the U.S. media's conduct during the 1991 Persian Gulf War
under the first President Bush, John MacArthur, author of the book,
Second Front, Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, examined the
ways in which the White House at that time easily manipulated public
opinion through the use of blatant propaganda with the eager
collaboration of a compliant press corps. As President Bush's son George
W. now plans a new war against Iraq, MacArthur finds that the same brand
of lies and half-truths are being employed to assemble national support
for a pre-emptive strike against Baghdad that most of the world opposes. 

Between The Lines' Scott Harris spoke with John MacArthur, publisher of
Harper's Magazine, who discusses his fear that Pentagon censorship
combined with a timid brand of corporate journalism will deprive the
American people of the truth in any future war with Iraq.

John MacArthur: I don't know whether people are aware of the fact that
the press in 1991 was rounded up and placed into what they called
pools of reporters to allegedly cover the war in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
and Iraq. The pools were by definition a kind of pre-emptive censorship.
In other words, once you agreed to participate in the pools and play by
the rules of the Pentagon and the White House, you were essentially
guaranteed that you would see nothing and there would be nothing worth
censoring because no one got anywhere near any combat -- nobody saw any
corpses, nobody saw anything you would describe as battle. And this was
by design, because the Pentagon, the White House and their public
relations experts had figured out from past conflicts, particularly
Vietnam, that ugly pictures of dead soldiers and civilians upset people
back home and might weaken morale. Some went so far as to say that the
press lost Vietnam, which is preposterous. Even the most extreme hawks
in Washington and the military know that's nonsense. But they'll say it
to get people riled up against the press. In any case, they said,
either you agree to the pool system or you get nothing. And the media
by and large agreed to the pool system and we got nothing. The only
really good reporting on the Gulf War, the actual fighting, occurred 10
years later. Seymour Hersh finally broke a piece, wrote a long, long
piece in the New Yorker, about Gen. Barry McCaffrey's rampage after the
cease-fire was declared in which he killed thousands and thousands,
untold thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were really just trying to flee
back to Iraq. But we saw none of that at the time.

The propaganda side of the war, which I detailed (in my book), was very
sophisticated. The piece de resistance was the baby incubator atrocity
that never happened. The famous testimony by Nayirah, who no one knew
was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington, saying she'd
seen babies pulled from incubators left to die on the cold floor of
Kuwait City hospitals so that the Iraqi army could loot the incubators.
None of it ever happened, not one incubator was looted, not one baby was
killed in that manner and it had a tremendous impact on public opinion.
And was very effective in changing the subject from oil and Middle East
politics and so on and so forth, to simply human rights, which is not an
issue that the first Bush administration ever showed much interest in,
just as the second Bush administration has very little use for it.

Between The Lines: The media's conduct since the Persian Gulf War and --
maybe we can look at the most recent conflict in Afghanistan -- the pool
reports, the restrictions that the Pentagon placed on journalists. Were
they in evidence and pretty much following the old Bush administration
model in 2001?

John MacArthur: Well, actually it's even gotten worse because they
didn't even bother to form the pools this time. The government has
gotten so aggressive and (Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld
particularly, is so aggressive that they mock the press. They mock the
whole idea of open coverage of anything that they don't want covered and
as a result, we didn't even have the pool system invoked. We did have
instances where 

[pjnews] The Secret War On Iraq

[parallax]

The Secret War On Iraq
By John Pilger

The Mirror 19 December 2002

THE American and British attack on Iraq has already begun. While the Blair
government continues to claim in Parliament that no final decision has been
taken, Royal Air Force and US fighter bombers have secretly changed tactics
and escalated their patrols over Iraq to an all-out assault on both military
and civilian targets.

American and British bombing of Iraq has increased by 300 per cent. Between
March and November, according to Ministry of Defence replies to MPs, the RAF
dropped more than 124 tonnes of bombs. 

[pjnews] Happy New Year, 2003?

[parallax]

Apologies for the duplicate postings of recent messages to the list.  
Hopefully, all the e-mail problems have now been fixed...

Scott


Happy New Year, 2003?
by Ted Glick

I very rarely use the word, happy. In a world so unjust, oppressive and
violent, where it feels as if the bad guys always seem to win (which isn't
true), having a goal of a carefree, blissed-out happiness, almost seems like
criminal negligence. 

This is especially true this year, as the whole world wonders what fate awaits
us as far as war in the Middle East, a war which could trigger a much wider
and extremely destructive conflict. How can we expect happiness?

And yet, if we are to keep the faith, stay hopeful and positive, and undertake
acts of love to strengthen the forces of justice as we try to stop the drive
towards war, we need to find a degree of inner calm and balance that will
sustain and motivate us. 

On the surface this calm and balance might look like happiness, but I don't
think it is. From my experiences over the years, I'd call it something else. 

The famous Helen Keller, who called herself a socialist, had some very
profound words to say to describe this something else: 

Four things to learn in life:

To think clearly without hurry or confusion;

To love everybody sincerely;

To act in everything with the highest motives;

To trust God unhesitatingly.

I carry these words around in my wallet and have them posted on my office
wall. For years I've been reflecting on them. I feel closest to the first and
third points, and I appreciate the sentiment behind the fourth one, but after
many years of thinking about it, I still have difficulty with the second
point, in a real sense. After all, how can one love Dick Cheney, John
Ashcroft, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and the many others
who, if justice were more than a seven-letter word, would be either behind
bars or ex-felons?

Keller is picking up on the teachings of the great religious leaders of the
past 2,000 years who taught that we should love our enemies and do good to
those who persecute us. As I've thought about this and applied it from time to
time, I can support this concept if the idea is to firmly resist injustice and
oppression, from whatever source, while never losing sight of the humanity,
latent or repressed though it may be, of those enemies. Oppose the policies
and the system, not the individuals caught up in it. As I see it, the primary
reason to attempt to live out this seemingly-impossible ethical commandment is
to make it less likely that those of us who are trying to be effective
change-agents will be corrupted by the old ways of the repressive and violent
system we are trying to transcend.

Living like this, attempting to live like this, is a key element in the
process of finding enough inner peace and balance to be an effective leader
for positive social change.

The popular movement for peace and justice that is very much alive and kicking
in the United States as this new year begins, as demonstrated by the 2000
Nader/LaDuke Green Party campaign, the massive demonstrations in Washington,
D.C. and San Francisco on April 20th and October 26th of the year past, and
the persistent grassroots organizing at local levels on a wide range of issues
all over the country, needs, absolutely needs, large numbers of people within
it who appreciate this fundamental insight.

This movement must consciously learn from the best of the women's movement and
reject the competitive, hierarchical and self-centered styles of leadership
that far too many men and some, mainly white middle- and upper-class, women
often display. We need to keep learning how to work in a collective and
cooperative way, a way that is distinctly different than the aggressive,
me-first culture that is dominant in U.S. society today. We need to show by
example, by the way that we function, that we have have grown and learned
beyond the old destructive patterns of personal interaction that have kept us
divided and weak for literally decades. We must be known not just for our good
ideas about how to remake society and our work on issues but by the way we
interact with each other and with other people on personal levels.

Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish woman who was one of the leading European
revolutionaries of the first 20 years of the 20th century, had some very
appropriate words to say about this critical need, this something else that
is critical to our ultimate success:

Unrelenting revolutionary activity, coupled with a boundless humanity-this
alone is the real life-giving force of socialism. A world must be overturned,
but every tear that has flowed and might have been wiped away is an
indictment, and a man hurrying to perform a great deed who steps on even a
worm out of unfeeling carelessness commits a crime.

And more recently, in 1965, Latin American revolutionary Che Guevera put it
like this:

At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is

[pjnews] The 10 Worst Corporations of 2002

[parallax]

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2002
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

2002 will forever be remembered as the year of corporate crime, the year
even President George Bush embraced the notion of corporate
responsibility.

While the Bush White House has now downgraded its corporate
responsibility portal to a mere link to uninspiring content on the
White House webpage, and although the prospect of war has largely bumped
the issue off the front pages, the cascade of corporate financial and
accounting scandals continues.

We easily could have filled Multinational Monitor's list of the 10 Worst
Corporations of the Year with some of the dozens of companies embroiled
in the financial scandals.

But we decided against that course.

As extraordinary as the financial misconduct has been, we didn't want to
contribute to the perception that corporate wrongdoing in 2002 was
limited to the financial misdeeds arena.

For Multinational Monitor's 10 Worst Corporations of 2002 list, we
included only Andersen from the ranks of the financial criminals and
miscreants. Andersen's assembly line document destruction certainly
merits a place on the list. (Citigroup appears on the list as well, but
primarily for a subsidiary's involvement in predatory lending,
as well as the company's funding of environmentally destructive projects
around the world.)

As for the rest, we present a collection of polluters, dangerous pill
peddlers, modern-day mercenaries, enablers of human rights abuses,
merchants of death, and
beneficiaries of rural destruction and misery.

Multinational Monitor has named Arthur Andersen, British American
Tobacco (BAT), Caterpillar, Citigroup, DynCorp, MM/Mars, Procter 
Gamble, Schering Plough, Shell and Wyeth as the 10 Worst Corporations of 2001.

Appearing in alphabetical order, the 10 worst are:

Arthur Andersen, for a massive scheme to destroy documents related to
the Enron meltdown. Tons of paper relating to the Enron audit were
promptly shredded as part of the orchestrated document destruction, a
federal indictment against Andersen alleged. The shredder at the
Andersen office at the Enron building was used virtually constantly and,
to handle the overload, dozens of large trunks filled with Enron
documents were sent to Andersen's main Houston office to be shredded.
Andersen was convicted for illegal document destruction, effectively
putting the company out of business.

BAT, for operating worldwide programs supposedly designed to prevent
youth smoking but which actually make the practice more attractive to
kids (by suggesting smoking is an adult activity), continuing to deny
the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke, and working to oppose
efforts at the World Health Organization to adopt a strong Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control.

Caterpillar, for selling bulldozers to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF),
which are used as an instrument of war to destroy Palestinian homes and
buildings. The IDF has destroyed more than 7,000 Palestinian homes since
the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967, leaving 30,000 people
homeless.

Citigroup, both for its deep involvement in the Enron and other
financial scandals and its predatory lending practices through its
recently acquired subsidiary The Associates. Citigroup paid $215 million
to resolve Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that The Associates
engaged in systematic and widespread deceptive and abusive lending practices.

DynCorp, a controversial private firm which subcontracts military
services with the Defense Department, for flying planes that spray
herbicides on coca crops in Colombia. Farmers on the ground allege that
the herbicides are killing their legal crops, and exposing them to
dangerous toxins.

MM/Mars, for responding tepidly to revelations about child slaves in
the West African fields where much of the world's cocoa is grown, and
refusing to commit to purchase a modest 5 percent of its product from
Fair Trade providers.

Procter  Gamble, the maker of Folger's coffee and part of the coffee
roaster oligopoly, for failing to take action to address plummeting
coffee bean prices. Low prices have pushed tens of thousands of farmers
in Central America, Ethiopia, Uganda and elsewhere to the edge of
survival, or destroyed their means of livelihood altogether.

Schering Plough, for a series of scandals, most prominently allegation
of repeated failure over recent years to fix problems in manufacturing
dozens of drugs at four of its facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico.
Schering paid $500 million to settle the case with the Food and Drug 
Administration.

Shell Oil, for continuing business as usual as one of the world's
leading environmental violators -- while marketing itself as a socially
and environmentally responsible company.

Wyeth, for using duplicitous means, and without sufficient scientific
proof, to market hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to women as a
fountain of youth. Scientific evidence reported in 2002 showed that

[pjnews] Reclaiming our Courage

[parallax]

[pjnews] Int'l Campaign against U.S. Aggression on Iraq

[parallax]

A Report from Cairo on the International Campaign against U.S. Aggression
on Iraq

By Peter Phillips

Cairo - December 19th, Bid-Meellah-E Rahman-E Al Rahim, In the name of God,
the Merciful, the Compassionate, was the prayer by President Ahmad Ben
Bella of Algeria introducing the start of the International Campaign
Against Aggression on Iraq. The Conrad Hotel on the Nile River in Cairo
served as the gathering place for over 400 people from some twenties
countries on December 18-19, 2002. We assembled to launch an international
effort to prevent United States military aggression and in the hope of
stimulating worldwide protest against the pending war on the people of
Iraq. There was a shared belief among the participants that a unified
Cairo Declaration from the center of the Arab world would contribute to
the growing millions of people worldwide who have protested and marched
against what is now being described as Bush's War.

President Ben Bella, hero of the Algerian revolution, expressed what were
to become common themes at the conference: that Regime change in Iraq would
only be the first Arab country to be attacked, and that Iran, Syria, and
even Egypt would follow. Oil is Islam, declared Ben Bella, the United
States is part of a long line of colonial powers. Each in turn has been
destroyed and nothing else is possible for the United States. Arab peoples
will not be subject to colonial rule; continued struggle will emerge to
defeat the invaders. Arab civilization is the museum of humanity' and will
not be the subject of a New World Order or a final crusade.

In private Ben Bella was less than optimistic about the chances of avoiding
war. At 85 years of age, he is a striking six feet four inches tall with a
firm handshake. When finding out I was an American he said through a
translator, tell the American people that they are the only ones who can
stop this war. I told him of our anti-war protests and marches but he said
we must try harder.

For two days speakers from Europe, the Arab world and the Americas
expressed solidarity with the people of Iraq and outrage at U.S.
unilateralism.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark spoke of the great urgency
facing the world. He described the huge U.S. Military build-up taking place
in the Gulf and how if the U.S. attacks we will become the enemy of
humanity.

John Rees from the Stop the War Coalition, in Great Britain, said that over
two thirds of the British oppose the war, and that over half a million
marched in London already, and by February 15th millions will march in
every city in Europe.

Mr. Saad K. Hammoundy, Iraq's ambassador the Arab League, sees U.S.
aggression as militarily inter-linked with the globalization of capital
investments. American capital penetration requires a military presence to
insure its security. The quest for the control of oil lead the U.S. to
steal Iraq's weapons declaration from the United Nations in order to change
it and find an excuse for an invasion. The U.S. cooked the Iraq report he
claimed. Hummoundy went on to say that the U.S. can teach nothing about
Democracy to a country that first had a parliament 3000 years ago and
continues to have deep democratic traditions.

Denis Halliday, (Ireland) was the United Nations Assistant
Secretary-General heading the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq up through 1998.
He resigned in protest of the genocide the embargoes were having on Iraq.
Halliday described how the UN Security Council is afraid to stand up to the
United States ambitions for a global empire.

Halliday's successor as the UN director of the Oil-for-Food program, Dr.
Hans Von Sponeck, resigned from his 30 year UN career rather than carry out
a genocide of truth and information cleansing, associated with the
Oil-for-Food program. Dr. Von Sponeck's calculations showed that Iraq
people are expected to live on only $174.00 per person per year under UN
sanctions. He describes the 150% increase in child morality from 1990 to
1999 as genocide and a Dictatorship of the Security Council.

Throughout the conference powerful descriptive words like hegemony,
imperialism, colonialism, and fascism were used to describe U.S. policy.
There was a clear smoldering anger towards the U.S. labeling of resistance
fighters as terrorists. Dr. William Ottman, representing the International
Federation of Journalists, reminded the conference participants how as a
young Dutch resistance fighter in World War II he was labeled by the Nazis
as a terrorist. His companions were hunted down and murdered much like the
license the CIA now holds to assassinate terrorists anywhere in the world.

Summarizing on the second day of the conference, George Galloway, Labor
member of Parliament in the UK, exclaimed, that the charge that Iraq holds
weapons of mass destruction is simply pulp fiction. Everyplace visited
by the inspectors so far has been completely empty, he stated. Galloway
warned the Arab countries that Great Britain and the U.S. behave as
imperial 

[pjnews] OSI Gone, but its programs still in place

[parallax]

Fairness  Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

MEDIA ADVISORY:
The Office of Strategic Influence Is Gone, But Are Its Programs In Place?

November 27, 2002

The Federation of American Scientists has pointed to a startling
revelation by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that mainstream media
have missed: In remarks during a recent press briefing, Rumsfeld suggested
that though the controversial Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) no
longer exists in name, its programs are still being carried out (FAS
Secrecy News, 11/27/02,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html ).

The OSI came under scrutiny last February, when the New York Times
reported (2/19/02) that the new Pentagon group was ?developing plans to
provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media
organizations.? The news was met with outrage, and within a week the
Pentagon had closed down the OSI, saying that negative attention had
damaged the office?s reputation so much ?that it could not operate
effectively (AP, 2/26/02).

The plan was troubling for many reasons: It was profoundly undemocratic;
it would have put journalists? lives at risk by involving them in Pentagon
disinformation; and it?s almost certain that any large-scale
disinformation campaign directed at the foreign press would have led,
sooner or later, to a falsified story being picked up by U.S. media. (See
Extra! Update 4/02, Behind the Pentagon's Propaganda Plan,
http://www.fair.org/extra/0204/osi.html .)

At the time, Rumsfeld claimed that he had ?never even seen the charter for
the office,? but Thomas Timmes, the OSI?s assistant for operations, said
that Rumsfeld had been briefed on its goals ?at least twice? and had
?given his general support? (New York Times, 2/25/02).

Now, in remarks made at a November 18 media briefing, Rumsfeld has
suggested that though the exposure of OSI's plans forced the Pentagon to
close the office, they certainly haven't given up on its work. According
to a transcript on the Department of Defense website, Rumsfeld told
reporters:

And then there was the Office of Strategic Influence. You may recall
that. And 'oh my goodness gracious isn't that terrible, Henny Penny the
sky is going to fall.' I went down that next day and said fine, if you
want to savage this thing fine I'll give you the corpse. There's the name.
You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that
needs to be done and I have.

A search of the Nexis database indicates that no major U.S. media
outlets-- no national broadcast television news shows, no major U.S.
newspapers, no wire services or major magazines-- have reported Rumsfeld's
remarks.

Rumsfeld's comments seem all the more alarming in light of analysis
presented by William Arkin in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion column
(11/24/02), in which he argues that Rumsfeld is redesigning the U.S.
military to make information warfare central to its functions.

This new policy, says Arkin, increasingly blurs or even erases the
boundaries between factual information and news, on the one hand, and
public relations, propaganda and psychological warfare, on the other.
Arkin adds that while the policy ostensibly targets foreign enemies, its
most likely victim will be the American electorate.

It is essential that media follow up this story, particularly now, as the
country faces a possible war with Iraq and reporters rely even more
heavily than usual on Pentagon information.

To read the full transcript of Rumsfeld's remarks, see:
http://www.dod.gov/news/Nov2002/t11212002_t1118sd2.html

FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[pjnews] 1/18 Anti-war Protests Worldwide

[parallax]

ACT NOW TO STOP WAR BEFORE IT STARTS:

January 18 Update
Read on to find: 

I. Update on Bush's rush towards war 
II. How you can make a financial contribution 
III. Demonstrations around the world January 18 
IV. Plans for Jan. 18 in DC: Speakers, Scenario  more

-

ONLY THE PEOPLE CAN STOP BUSH'S RUSH TOWARDS WAR
The January 18 National March on Washington DC and joint action in San
Francisco comes just nine days before what has been slated by the Bush
administration to be a deadline in their drive towards war on Iraq. 

Military preparations are underway at a feverish pitch. Last week, more than
1,350 Florida Army National Guard and U.S. Army reservists were called to
active duty (according to the Miami Herald, Dec. 27). This is the largest
call-up of Florida's National Guard and reservists since World War II -- and
it's also the first deployment of an infantry battalion since that time. Though
the military has not made an official statement as to why the units have been
mobilized at this time, the 150 members of a military police unit based on Fort
Lauderdale who have been called up as part of this mobilization are being sent
to Kuwait, a clear indication that they will be playing a role in any war in
Iraq. 

On January 27, Hans Blix (the head of UNMOVIC, the United Nations Monitoring
and Verification Commission) will make a report on the first two months of
weapons inspections in Iraq. Bush administration officials have indicated that
they view this date as a deadline for a final decision regarding their war
plans. 

We believe that we can still stop this war from happening. Thousands of
innocent people in Iraq and an unknown number of U.S. GIs will die unless we
can stop Bush's war plans. It is urgent that the anti-war movement not be
lulled into a false sense of optimism because Iraq and the UN are cooperating.
The Bush Administration is determined to wage war and occupy Iraq. The extent
to which the world is voicing cautious optimism about a peaceful solution, is
also the extent to which the Bush foreign policy team is racing to dash all
hope for such an outcome. 

The January 18 National March on Washington DC may very well be the last
opportunity that we have on a national level to show the breadth and depth of
opposition before the scheduled plan to start the war. 

We rely on the generous donations of those individuals who believe in our work.
Many have made a financial donation. We would like to again thank you. Without
your contributions we could not carry out this work. If you want to make a
contribution within the tax year (by December 31), you must make your online
contribution by 11:59 pm. If you are sending a check, as long as you date it by
December 31, it can be received next week (send checks to 39 W. 14th St., Room
206, New York, NY 10011). Online contributions can be made at
http://www.internationalanswer.org/donate.html

DEMONSTRATIONS AROUND THE WORLD JANUARY 18
In addition to the National March on Washington DC and joint action in San
Francisco, many international conferences and organizations have taken up the
call, making January 18 an international day of action opposing the war. At the
time of this writing, anti-war demonstrations have been scheduled in at least
12 countries for the weekend of Jan. 18-19, 2003. 

A worldwide anti-war conference which took place December 18-19 in Cairo,
Egypt, and included hundreds of representatives from 20 countries, set as its
first order of business a worldwide mobilization for January 18. The organizers
of the conference have called for a protest in Egypt, and many other
organizations in attendance have called for actions. In Japan, several
organizations will hold protests in Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto and Fukuoka. In Canada,
protests are planned across the country. There will be several demonstrations
in Italy and in Spain, and actions in Belgium, Indonesia, Britain, Germany,
Austria and Russia.

PLANS FOR JAN. 18 NATIONAL MARCH ON WASHINGTON DC
The scenario plan for Washington DC includes an opening rally on the West side
of the Capitol Building (on the National Mall, at 3rd St. and Constitution Ave.
NW). This rally will include representatives from the diverse movements and
organizations that oppose the war. Following the rally, we will hold a mass
march to the Washington Navy Yard -- a massive military installation located in
a working class neighborhood in Southeast Washington DC that parks warships on
the Anacostia River.

**

SPEAKERS  MESSAGES TO INCLDUE: 
- Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney 
- Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit 
- Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general 
- Mike Farrell, actor 
- Elizabeth McAlister, Jonah House 
- Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation 
- Brenda Stokely, President, District Council 1707 AFSCME; Co-Convener, New
York City Labor Against the War 
- Damu Smith, Black Voices for 

[pjnews] Action Alert: Contact the FCC

[parallax]

ACTION:

Let the FCC and Congress know that you want the rules that limit media 
consolidation to be preserved and strengthened, not weakened.

Write to your elected officials. You can look up the name and contact 
information of your Congressional and Senate representatives by entering your 
zip code at: http://congress.org/

For more info, see:
http://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html

Please forward this message everywhere!



New York Times, Jan 7, 2003

All News Media Inc.
By BILL KOVACH and TOM ROSENSTIEL

WASHINGTON
Without much notice, the federal government is moving toward the most
sweeping change ever in the rules that govern ownership of the American news
media.

This shift could reduce the independence of the news media and the ability
of Americans to take part in public debate. Yet because of meager press
coverage and steps taken by the Federal Communications Commission in its
policy-making process, most people probably have no idea that it is taking
place. 

Having seen how totalitarian regimes moved the world to war through
domination of their news media, the government during the 1940's put
restrictions on how many news media outlets one company could own, both
nationally and in a single city.

Though those rules have been relaxed in the last 20 years, companies are
still blocked from buying a newspaper and television station in the same
city or from owning more than one TV station in the same market.

Three weeks after it proposed eliminating those rules, the F.C.C. released a 
series of reports about the current media marketplace. But the reports focused 
almost entirely on the economic impact of relaxing the ownership rules. They 
largely ignore the public's interest in a diverse and independent press.

The F.C.C. argues that technologies like the Internet offer Americans access
to more information than ever and thus worries about monopolies are
unfounded. But studies also show that most Americans receive their news from
a handful of outlets. Beyond this, much of what appears on the Internet is
repackaged from those outlets. The number of operations that gather original
news is small and now may become smaller.

The question of concentration is most acute at the local level. In most
communities, even those with television and radio stations, the vast range
of activities are covered by only one institution, the local newspaper.

What will happen to communities if the ownership rules are eliminated? Among
the possibilities is that one or two companies in each town would have an
effective monopoly on reaching consumers by being allowed to control the
newspaper, radio, TV, billboards and more Ð with costly consequences for
businesses that need those outlets for advertising. Such a monopoly on
information would also reduce the diversity of cultural and political
discourse in a community.

The precedent in radio is telling. Since the rules on ownership of radio
were last relaxed in 1996, the two biggest companies went from owning 130
stations to more than 1,400.

The F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, has scheduled only one public
hearing, in Richmond, Va., on the proposal, and the public comment period
will close at the end of this month. It is a small and brief opportunity,
but one that the public should seize if it cherishes an independent press.


Bill Kovach is chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. Tom
Rosenstiel is director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.



Networks urge FCC to discard old rules

BY EDMUND SANDERS
LOS ANGELES TIMES

WASHINGTON — Three of the nation’s top television networks have urged the 
federal government to scrap all remaining media-ownership rules, which 
they say are no longer needed to spur competition among broadcasters and 
ensure diversity on television.

In a lengthy filing Thursday with the Federal Communications Commission, 
Fox Entertainment, NBC and CBSparent Viacom Inc. cited eight privately 
funded studies that they said showed how consolidation of television and 
radio stations had spurred more diversity of programming and local news, 
not less. The commission can abandon the current regulatory framework in 
its entirety and still rest assured that its policy goals will be 
well-served, the media giants said. There is no longer any 
public-interest need served by the commission’s media-ownership rules — in 
fact, the rules frequently undermine rather than advance the commission’s 
policy goals.

Consumer groups and entertainment unions hotly dispute such assertions, 
saying that media consolidation is putting TV news and programming into 
the hands of a few entertainment conglomerates.

In their own filings, groups including the Center for Digital Democracy, 
Writers Guild of America and Consumer Federation of America urged the FCC 
to strengthen media-ownership rules, which they argued are vital to the 
nation’s democracy and freedom of speech. We’ve already winnowed it down 
to 

[pjnews] 1/2 US Completing Post-Saddam Iraq Plans

[parallax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/international/middleeast/06IRAQ.html?ex=10
42860723ei=1en=7fe6672e690baa88

U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq
January 6, 2003 
By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES DAO 
NY Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 5 - President Bush's national security team is assembling
final plans for administering and democratizing Iraq after the expected ouster
of Saddam Hussein. Those plans call for a heavy American military presence in
the country for at least 18 months, military trials of only the most senior
Iraqi leaders and quick takeover of the country's oil fields to pay for
reconstruction. 

The proposals, according to administration officials who have been developing
them for several months, have been discussed informally with Mr. Bush in
considerable detail. They would amount to the most ambitious American effort to
administer a country since the occupations of Japan and Germany at the end of
World War II. With Mr. Bush's return here this afternoon, his principal foreign
policy advisers are expected to shape the final details in White House meetings
and then formally present them to the president. 

Many elements of the plans are highly classified, and some are still being
debated as Mr. Bush's team tries to allay concerns that the United States would
seek to be a colonial power in Iraq. But the broad outlines show the enormous
complexity of the task in months ahead, and point to some of the difficulties
that would follow even a swift and successful removal of Mr. Hussein from
power, including these: 

¶Though Mr. Bush came to office expressing distaste for using the military for
what he called nation building, the Pentagon is preparing for at least a year
and a half of military control of Iraq, with forces that would keep the peace,
hunt down Mr. Hussein's top leaders and weapons of mass destruction and, in the
words of one of Mr. Bush's senior advisers, keep the country whole. 

¶A civilian administrator - perhaps designated by the United Nations - would
run the country's economy, rebuild its schools and political institutions, and
administer aid programs. Placing those powers in nonmilitary hands,
administration officials hope, will quell Arab concerns that a military
commander would wield the kind of unchallenged authority that Gen. Douglas
MacArthur exercised as supreme commander in Japan. 

¶Only key senior officials of the Hussein government would need to be
removed and called to account, according to an administration document
summarizing plans for war trials. People in the Iraqi hierarchy who help bring
down the government may be offered leniency. 

¶The administration plan says, Government elements closely identified with
Saddam's regime, such as the revolutionary courts or the special security
organization, will be eliminated, but much of the rest of the government will
be reformed and kept. 

¶While publicly saying Iraqi oil would remain what one senior official calls
the patrimony of the Iraqi people, the administration is debating how to
protect oil fields during the conflict and how an occupied Iraq would be
represented in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, if at all. 

¶After long debate, especially between the Pentagon and the State Department,
the White House has rejected for now the idea of creating a provisional
government before any invasion. 

Officials involved in the planning caution that no matter how detailed their
plans, many crucial decisions would have to be made on the ground in Iraq. So
for now they have focused on legal precedents - including an examination of the
legal basis for taking control of the country at all - and a study of past
successes and failures in nation building, reaching back to the American
administration of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. 

The plans presented to Mr. Bush will include several contingencies that depend
heavily, officials say, on how Mr. Hussein leaves power. So much rides on the
conflict itself, if it becomes a conflict, and on how the conflict starts and
how the conflict ends, one of Mr. Bush's top advisers said. 

Much also depends on whether the arriving American troops would be welcomed or
shot at, and the Central Intelligence Agency has been drawing up scenarios that
range from a friendly occupation to a hostile one. 

Yet under all of the possibilities, the American military would remain the
central player in running the country for some time. The Pentagon has warned
that it would take at least a year to be certain that all of Mr. Hussein's
weapons stores were destroyed. 

Notably, the administration's written description of its goals include these
two objectives: preserve Iraq as a unitary state, with its territorial
integrity intact, and prevent unhelpful outside interference, military or
nonmilitary, apparently a warning to neighboring countries. 

Administration officials insist American forces would not stay in Iraq a day
longer than is necessary to stabilize the country. 

[pjnews] 2/2 US Completing Post-Saddam Iraq Plans

[parallax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/international/middleeast/06IRAQ.html?ex=10
42860723ei=1en=7fe6672e690baa88

U.S. Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq

continued...


The Oil Protecting It For the Iraqis 

There is no more delicate question for the administration than how to deal with
Iraq's oil reserves - the world's second largest, behind Saudi Arabia's - and
how to raise money from oil sales for rebuilding without prompting charges that
control of oil, not disarming Iraq, is Mr. Bush's true aim. 

Administration officials have been careful always to talk about Iraqi oil as
the property of the Iraqi people. But in the White House, the major concern is
that Mr. Hussein may plan to destroy the oil infrastructure in the first days
of any war, while trying to make it appear as if the destruction was the work
of American forces. 

What happens if he started systematically destroying the fields? a senior
official said. It's a big source of concern, and we are trying to take account
of it as we plan how to use our military forces. 

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking on Dec. 29, hinted at such a
military plan when he said, If coalition forces go into those oil fields, we
would want to protect those fields and make sure that they are used to benefit
the people of Iraq, and are not destroyed or damaged by a failing regime on the
way out the door. 

The White House has already concluded that the United Nations' oil-for-food
program, under which Iraq is permitted to sell a limited amount of oil to buy
civilian goods, will have to be amended quickly so oil revenues can be used
more broadly in the country. But it is unclear how the administration plans to
finesse the question of Iraq's role in OPEC and who would represent occupied
Iraq at the organization's meetings. 

The administration is already anticipating that neighboring Arab nations may
accuse occupied Iraq of pumping oil beyond OPEC quotas. One official said
Washington fully expects that the United States will be suspected of
undermining the oil organization, and it is working on strategies, which he
would not describe, to allay those fears. 

The Leadership Planning Both Trials And Incentives 

Mr. Bush has been warning since October that Iraqi generals who obeyed any
orders to use chemical or biological weapons against American troops would be
punished, perhaps as war criminals. 

Now, as part of the effort to undermine Mr. Hussein's government and get
evidence that has so far eluded United Nations inspectors, the White House is
putting a slightly different spin on that kind of talk. 

Those who have helped build Mr. Hussein's weapons stockpile, officials say, may
win some redemption by helping inspectors - and American forces. 

That approach appears to be part of a strategy to encourage a coup and persuade
military leaders and scientists to give up the country's chemical and
biological stockpiles and its nuclear research efforts. The politics of Iraq
are so opaque that it's just hard to know what is or isn't rumbling under the
surface, one of Mr. Bush's most senior advisers said. As a result, the
president is looking to create maximum pressure on the top leadership. 

Already the C.I.A. and others have drawn up lists of Mr. Hussein's top command
and the heads of his security forces who would probably be put on trial. 

One State Department working group is studying a kind of truth and
reconciliation process, modeled after the one in South Africa, which could
publicly shame, but not necessarily punish, human rights violators. 

The Transition No to Installing Provisional Rulers 

Few issues have divided the administration more bitterly than how to create a
transitional Iraqi government that could serve as a bridge between the American
military occupation and a permanent, democratic government. The issue reflects
the administration's ideological fault lines, and in recent months Mr. Bush's
national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has stepped in, as one senior aide
said, to make sure there was not a public food fight on this one. 

White House officials say that those divisions have now been resolved, and that
while planning is going forward, the United States will not overtly install a
provisional government or designate its leaders. 

The division was a familiar one. Senior civilian officials in the Pentagon and
some advisers to Vice President Dick Cheney argued for the creation of a
provisional government even before Baghdad falls. It would be led, at least
initially, by Iraqi exiles. The proponents argue that such a government in
exile would speed creation of a permanent government if Mr. Hussein is removed,
allowing United States forces to withdraw sooner. Among the reported advocates
were Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who wants the military's role to
be brief. 

The quicker you get a transition from military victory to transitional
government, the better, a senior Pentagon official said. We want to be there
as 

[pjnews] Enemy Combatants Can Be Detained Indefinitely

[parallax]

Detention Upheld in Enemy Combatant Case
January 9, 2003 
By NEIL A. LEWIS 
NY Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - A federal appeals court handed the Bush administration a
major legal victory today in ruling that a wartime president can indefinitely
detain a United States citizen captured as an enemy combatant on the
battlefield and deny that person access to a lawyer. 

The case, which set up a stark clash between the nation's security interests
and its citizens' civil liberties, may have expanded the power of the
presidency as the three-judge panel ruled unanimously that President Bush was
due great deference in conducting the war on terrorism. 

The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in
Richmond, Va., said it was improper for the federal courts to probe too deeply
into the detention of Yasser Esam Hamdi, a 22-year-old American-born Saudi who
was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and is now imprisoned in a
military brig in Norfolk, Va. 

Lawyers for Mr. Hamdi challenged his detention, asserting that because he is a
citizen he has the same constitutional rights as citizens in criminal cases,
including the right to consult a lawyer and to question the reasons for his
confinement. 

The appeals panel said that to deprive any citizen of his constitutional
protections is not a step that any court would casually take. [Excerpts, Page
A15.] 

Even so, in the opinion written by the circuit's chief judge, J. Harvie
Wilkinson III, the panel said, The safeguards that all Americans have come to
expect in criminal prosecutions do not translate neatly to the arena of armed
conflict. In fact if deference is not exercised with respect to military
judgments in the field, it is difficult to see where deference would ever
obtain. 

Attorney General John Ashcroft called the decision an important victory for
the president's ability to protect the American people in times of war. 

But Elisa Massimino, a director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights,
said: The court seems to be saying that it has no role whatsoever in
overseeing the administration's conduct of the war on terrorism. That is
particularly disturbing in the context of a potentially open-ended,
as-yet-undeclared war, the beginning and end of which is left solely to the
president's discretion. 

The lawyers authorized by Mr. Hamdi's father to argue the case on his son's
behalf are certain to seek a review from the Supreme Court, but there is no
guarantee that the justices will take up the case. 

The only other American citizen known to be held without charges is Jose
Padilla, the so-called dirty-bomb suspect. Unlike Hamdi, who was captured on a
battlefield in Afghanistan, Mr. Padilla was arrested at O'Hare International
Airport in Chicago on suspicion of being involved in a terrorist plot to
detonate a radioactive device. He is being held in a military brig in South
Carolina. 

Today's ruling may be the most far-reaching yet in a host of court cases
brought on by the administration's efforts in the war on terrorism. 

In one case, a federal district judge has upheld the administration's decision
to hold about 600 prisoners at the Guantánamo naval base in Cuba, ruling that
the laws of the United States do not apply there. 

Other federal judges have ruled that the Bush administration could not hold
hearings on immigration violations in secret and could not withhold the names
of those arrested on such charges from the public. Those cases are making their
way through the appellate courts. 

The Hamdi case began with the narrow issue of whether the courts should be
satisfied with a Defense Department official's two-page, nine-paragraph
statement that offered a spare accounting of facts to justify the government
charge that Mr. Hamdi has been properly labeled an enemy combatant. 

Judge Robert G. Doumar of Federal District Court in Norfolk ruled in August
that the declaration - made by Michael Mobbs, a special adviser to the under
secretary of defense for policy - was not enough. 

The appeals court reversed that finding today and went much further in defining
the authority of the executive branch in wartime. 

The constitutional allocation of war powers affords the president
extraordinarily broad authority as commander in chief and compels courts to
assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority, the
panel found. 

While courts are entitled to review detentions when asked, the panel ruled
that, courts are ill-positioned to police the military's distinction between
those in the arena of combat who should be detained and those who should not. 

The panel said it would be improper for the judicial branch to launch an
exhaustive inquiry into the conditions of Mr. Hamdi's capture, as his lawyers
had requested. To do so, the judges said, would require officers to travel back
to the United States from across the globe. They said the conduct of the war
should not be determined by litigation. 

The appeals court 

[pjnews] Veterans Call to Conscience

[parallax]

Veterans Call to Conscience

Check out the web site for updates on signatures http://calltoconscience.net/ 
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: VCC 4742 42nd Ave SW #142 Seattle, WA 
98116-4553 

Call to Conscience from Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservists 
Started December 6, 2002

We are veterans of the United States armed forces. We stand with the majority 
of humanity, including millions in our own country, in opposition to the United 
States’ all out war on Iraq. We span many wars and eras, have many political 
views and we all agree that this war is wrong. Many of us believed serving in 
the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country. Our 
experiences in the military caused us to question much of what we were taught. 
Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed 
forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the 
consequences of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active 
duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right thing. 

In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe 
distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of 
thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra—the Highway of 
Death—where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches, 
burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields 
radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs, burning chemical 
weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic cocktail affecting both 
the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is 
disabled. 

During the Vietnam War we were ordered to destroy Vietnam from the air and on 
the ground. At My Lai we massacred over 500 women, children and old men. This 
was not an aberration, it’s how we fought the war. We used Agent Orange on the 
enemy and then experienced first hand its effects. We know what Post Traumatic 
Stress Disorder looks, feels and tastes like because the ghosts of over two 
million men, women and children still haunt our dreams. More of us took our own 
lives after returning home than died in battle. 

If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an 
occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people 
that hate you to your core? You should think about what your “mission” really 
is. You are being sent to invade and occupy a people who, like you and me, are 
only trying to live their lives and raise their kids. They pose no threat to 
the United States even though they have a brutal dictator as their leader. Who 
is the U.S. to tell the Iraqi people how to run their country when many in the 
U.S. don’t even believe their own President was legally elected? 

Saddam is being vilified for gassing his own people and trying to develop 
weapons of mass destruction. However, when Saddam committed his worst crimes 
the U.S. was supporting him. This support included providing the means to 
produce chemical and biological weapons. Contrast this with the horrendous 
results of the U.S. led economic sanctions. More than a million Iraqis, mainly 
children and infants, have died because of these sanctions. After having 
destroyed the entire infrastructure of their country including hospitals, 
electricity generators, and water treatment plants, the U.S. then, with the 
sanctions, stopped the import of goods, medicines, parts, and chemicals 
necessary to restore even the most basic necessities of life. 

There is no honor in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an 
unjust war, an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is 
not “collateral damage,” it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of 
dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is 
not “destroying enemy infrastructure,” it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a 
father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone lines so he 
could not call an ambulance, it is not “neutralizing command and control 
facilities,” it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer 
conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole 
lives, it is not victory, it is murder. 

There will be veterans leading protests against this war on Iraq and your 
participation in it. During the Vietnam War thousands in Vietnam and in the 
U.S. refused to follow orders. Many resisted and rebelled. Many became 
conscientious objectors and others went to prison rather than bear arms against 
the so-called enemy. During the last Gulf War many GIs resisted in various ways 
and for many different reasons. Many of us came out of these wars and joined 
with the anti-war movement. 

If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when 
being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a 
nation. Now is that time. When orders come to 

[pjnews] Iraqi Casualties/ IAEA Challenges US Claims of Iraqi Nuclear Threat

[parallax]

U.N. SEES 500,000 IRAQI CASUALTIES AT START OF WAR 
Irwin Arieff, Reuters, 1/7/03 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2cid=564ncid=564e=2u=/nm/2003
0107/ts_nm/iraq_un_casualties_dc_1

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - As many as half a million Iraqis could require
medical treatment as a result of serious injuries suffered in the early stages
of a war on Iraq, U.N. emergency planners said in a document disclosed Tuesday.

The total includes some 100,000 expected to be injured as a direct result of
combat and a further 400,000 wounded as an indirect result of the devastation,
according to estimates prepared by the World Health Organization, the document
said. 

The confidential U.N. assessment was drafted a month ago but an edited version
was posted Tuesday on the Web site of a British group opposed to sanctions on
Iraq (http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/undocs/war021210.pdf)... 

The resultant devastation would undoubtedly be great, the U.N. planners
concluded. The estimates were based on material from several different U.N.
organizations. 

U.N. officials had previously disclosed that as many as 4.5 million to 9.5
million of Iraq's 26.5 million people could quickly need outside food to
survive once an attack began. 

War would also produce a huge refugee problem, driving some 900,000 Iraqis into
neighboring countries, with about 100,000 of those requiring immediate
assistance as soon as they arrived, according to the U.N. estimate.

--

Agency Challenges Evidence Against Iraq Cited by Bush
By MICHAEL R. GORDON 
NY Times
January 10, 2003 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — The key piece of evidence that President Bush hascited as
proof that Saddam Hussein has sought to revive his program to make nuclear
weapons was challenged today by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In his
remarks to the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Bush
cited Iraq's attempts to buy special aluminum tubes as proof that Baghdad was
seeking to construct a centrifuge network system to enrich uranium for nuclear
bombs.

Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to
enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon, Mr. Bush said.

But Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., offered a
sharply different assessment in a report to the United Nations Security Council
today.

Dr. ElBaradei said Iraqi officials had claimed that they sought the tubes to
make 81-millimeter rockets. Dr. ElBaradei indicated that he thought the Iraqi
claim was credible.

While the matter is still under investigation and further verification is
foreseen, the I.A.E.A.'s analysis to date indicates that the specifications of
the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq in 2001 and 2002 appear to be consistent with
reverse engineering of rockets, the agency said in its report. While it would
be possible to modify such tubes for the manufacture of centrifuges, they are
not directly suitable for it.

While the discussion of Iraq's procurement efforts is highly technical, it is
politically very significant. The primary rational for going to war with Iraq
rests on fears that Baghdad is striving to develop a nuclear weapon. The
argument for military intervention, in effect, is that Iraq was much closer to
a nuclear weapon before the 1991 Persian Gulf war than most experts thought and
might be again.

United States officials have long been concerned that Iraq would try to revive
its nuclear weapons program and have cited several pieces of evidence. First,
after the 1991 gulf war United Nations inspectors learned that Iraq had planned
to build a centrifuge plant of 1,000 machines. Second, British intelligence has
reported that Iraq wanted to produce a special magnet that would be suitable
for a gas centrifuge system.

Another important indicator, officials said, was Iraq's efforts to procure
special aluminum tubes. In a report titled A Decade of Deception and
Defiance, the White House asserted that Iraq had sought to buy thousands of
tubes over a 14-month period to make centrifuges for enriching uranium. Though
the shipments were blocked, officials said, the White House said they
demonstrated that Iraq was striving to become a nuclear power.

Still, American intelligence was never of a single mind on the question of
aluminum tubes. While there have been varying assessments, the dominant view
among American intelligence analysts — one backed by the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency — is
that the precise dimensions and specifications of the tubes indicated that they
were intended for use in making centrifuges. But some officials in the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department have
questioned this analysis, saying that the tubes might be intended to make
rockets.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have taken the position that the
C.I.A.'s case is compelling. Senior officials said that some of the tubes
sought 

[pjnews] Media Missing New Evidence About Genoa Violence

[parallax]

Fairness  Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Media Missing New Evidence About Genoa Violence

January 10, 2003

Police in Genoa, Italy have admitted to fabricating evidence against
globalization activists in an attempt to justify police brutality during
protests at the July 2001 G8 Summit. In searches of the Nexis database,
FAIR has been unable to find a single mention of this development in any
major U.S. newspapers or magazines, national television news shows or wire
service stories.

According to reports from the BBC and the German wire service Deutsche
Presse-Agentur (1/7/03, 1/8/03), a senior Genoa police officer, Pietro
Troiani, has admitted that police planted two Molotov cocktails in a
school that was serving as a dormitory for activists from the Genoa Social
Forum. The bombs were apparently planted in order to justify the police
force's brutal July 22 raid on the school. According to the BBC, the bombs
had in fact been found elsewhere in the city, and Troijani now says
planting them at the school was a silly thing to do.

The BBC and DPA also report that another senior officer has admitted to
faking the stabbing of a police officer in order to frame protesters.
These revelations have emerged over the course of a parliamentary inquiry
into police conduct that was initiated by the Italian government under
pressure from domestic and international outrage over the blood-soaked G8
summit in Genoa (London Guardian, 7/31/01). Three police chiefs have been
transferred and at least 77 officers have been investigated on brutality
charges.


An embarrassing inquiry 

More than 100,000 people participated in the 2001 Genoa protests, most of
them peacefully. Italian authorities, however, prepared for the protests
by ordering 200 body bags and designating a room at the Genoa hospital as
a temporary morgue (BBC, 6/21/01). Twenty thousand police and troops were
on hand, armed with tear gas, water cannon and military hardware as
authorities enclosed part of the city in a so-called ring of steel, with
many railways and roads closed and air traffic shut down.

The U.S. press routinely gloss over this militaristic response, instead
invoking the demonstrations as proof of the threat posed by globalization
activists. Even the killing of Carlo Giuliani-- a protester who was shot
in the head, run over and killed by police after he threw a fire
extinguisher at a police vehicle-- is recounted by U.S. media as a timely
lesson for activists that, as Time magazine put it, You reap what you
sow (7/30/01).

As FAIR documented at the time (FAIR Action Alert, 7/26/01), most U.S.
media responded to the violence with sensationalistic reports on the drama
in the streets of this gritty port city (ABC World News Tonight,
7/20/01), but showed little curiosity about fundamental questions, such as
why Italian forces were armed with live ammunition. (As for the
substantive political concerns motivating the protests, they were all but
ignored).

The July 22 police raid which has become a focus of Italy's parliamentary
inquiry was carried out on the headquarters of the Genoa Social Forum--
the umbrella group coordinating the protests-- and the neighboring
Independent Media Center (IMC).

It received largely indifferent coverage in the U.S., but reports in
independent and non-U.S. media indicated that some 200 police officers
brutally beat sleeping activists in an attack that led to more than a
dozen of the arrestees being carried out on stretchers, some unconscious
(Guardian, 7/24/01). Of the 93 people arrested at the school, 72 suffered
injuries. All were eventually released without charge (DPA, 1/8/03).

The coverage of this attack on the nightly newscasts of the U.S.'s three
major broadcast networks was instructive. At first, ABC World News Tonight
did not report the raid at all. CBS Evening News (7/22/01) mentioned it in
passing, with the reporter noting almost approvingly that the tactics
were heavy-handed, but the streets were quiet today. Commendably, NBC
Nightly News (7/22/01) devoted more significant attention to the attack
and reported organizers' claim that all the arrestees had been non-violent
and were the latest victims of police brutality.

A couple of weeks later, it emerged that some of the victims were
American. The three nightly newscasts then showed somewhat more attention
to the issue of police brutality, running reports that included footage of
the blood splashed on the floors and walls of the school (ABC, 8/8/01; CBS
and NBC 8/11/01). CBS distinguished itself poorly again by introducing its
follow-up report with excuses: However provoked the Italian police were
during the rioting around last month's summit in Genoa, their behavior has
become the subject of an embarrassing domestic inquiry in Italy.

Embarrassing is one word for it. Amnesty International found a few others,
saying that police at the summit seemed to show scant concern for human
rights (The Wire, September 

[pjnews] Action: Don't Let CBS Ridicule Rural America

[parallax]

IMAGINE THE EPISODE WHERE THEY HAVE TO INTERVIEW MAIDS, CHORTLED ONE CBS 
EXECUTIVE. How many ways can one TV network get it wrong?

No. 1: Pick the last group of Americans about whom disparaging stereotypes go 
almost 
unchallenged: the people of Appalachia.

No. 2: After a hick hunt, as one headline put it, relocate an entire lower 
middle class family, including kids and grandparents, to 90210.

No. 3: Revive the Beverly Hillbillies label and slap it on a cheap-to-produce 
reality show for even cheaper laughs. 

No. 4: Let the real-life humiliation begin. There are lots of things TV could 
help us know about rural America. Some things, like the realities of poverty, 
unemployment and environmental degradation, are painful to talk about, 
challenging to hear. Others, because of the grit, courage and faith of rural 
families and communities, might actually teach a thing or two to privileged 
entertainment executives.

This spring, CBS hopes to unveil its latest reality show -- The Real Beverly 
Hillbillies. The concept is simple: uproot a poor rural family, transplant 
its members into a Los Angeles mansion, let the camera roll -- and then laugh 
at them. Tolerance.Org 

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=665  and the Center for 
Rural Strategies http://www.ruralstrategies.org/index.html  are trying to 
stop this grotesque spectacle before it starts. There are 56 million rural 
Americans and they are NOT fair game for CBS executives to contort and make 
sport of to line their pockets.

You can help stop CBS. Call (323.575.2345  
323.575.2600) or e-mail  CBS CEO Les Moonves. 
Tell your friends about CBS's plans and sign this petition 

http://www.ruralstrategies.org/campaign/join.html.  Don't let CBS
ridicule rural America.

[pjnews] Not All White House Reporters are Pushovers

[parallax]

NOT ALL WHITE HOUSE REPORTERS ARE PUSHOVERS
By Norman Solomon / Creators Syndicate

 At 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., reporters usually shuffle along to a snoozy
beat. But anyone who denigrates the mainstream media in general, or the
White House press corps in particular, should acknowledge that exceptional
journalists do strive to ask deeper questions while most colleagues go
through the motions.

 The latest in a long line of presidential spinners, Ari Fleischer,
began a news conference on Jan. 6 with a nice greeting: Good afternoon and
happy New Year to everybody. But his bonhomie didn't last more than a
minute.

 At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the president deplored
the taking of innocent lives, Helen Thomas began. Does that apply to all
innocent lives in the world?

 It was a simple question -- and, unfortunately, an extraordinary one.
Few journalists at the White House move beyond the subtle but powerful ties
that bind reporters and top officials in Washington. Routinely, shared
assumptions are the unspoken name of the game.

 In this case, Thomas wasn't playing -- and Fleischer's new year wasn't
exactly off to a great start. His tongue moved, but he declined to answer
the question. Instead, he parried: I refer specifically to a horrible
terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds.

 Of course that attack was reprehensible. But Thomas had asked whether
President Bush deplored the taking of all innocent lives in the world.
And Fleischer didn't want to go there.

 But Helen Thomas, an 82-year-old journalist who has been covering the
White House for several decades, was not to be deterred by the flack's
sleight-of-tongue maneuver. My follow-up is, she persisted, why does he
want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

 On a dime, Fleischer spun paternal and nationalistic. Helen, the
question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --

 What Fleischer had just called the question was actually his
question. He had no use for hers.

 Thomas responded: They're not attacking you. Have they [the Iraqis]
laid the glove on you or on the United States ... in 11 years?

 Fleischer laced his retort with sarcasm. I guess you have forgotten
about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of
Saddam Hussein's aggression then.

 Is this revenge, Thomas replied, 11 years of revenge?

 The man in charge of White House spin revved up the RPMs. Helen, I
think you know very well that the president's position is that he wants to
avert war ... 

 But the journalist refused to jettison her original, still-unanswered
question. She asked: Would the president attack innocent Iraqi lives?

 The president wants to make certain that he can defend our country
... 

 Thomas would not back off. She demanded to know whether Bush thinks
the Iraqi people are a threat to us.

 At that point, Fleischer went off message with a weird statement. The
Iraqi people are represented by their government, said the man speaking
for the president of the United States. A journalist's persistence had led
him to put foot in polished mouth.

 Some people like to play Hail to the Chief. I would prefer to say
Hail to the dean of the Washington press corps -- Helen Thomas. She knows
that asking truly tough questions involves a lot more than echoing partisan
ping-pong.

 After 57 years as a reporter for United Press International, she quit
UPI in 2000 when it was bought by News World Communications, a firm
affiliated with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Unification Church.
(Among its holdings is The Washington Times.) Since then, Thomas has been
writing an incisive syndicated column for Hearst Newspapers.

 In a speech at MIT a couple of months ago, Helen Thomas told the
audience: I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter. Media
professionals are frequently unwilling to say in public what they know in
private. When a mainstream journalist breaks out of self-censorship, the
public benefits.

 Day in and day out, Helen Thomas is conspicuous for her fortitude at
White House press conferences. And let's also give credit to an intrepid
newcomer at such press follies. The other day, Russell Mokhiber of the
Corporate Crime Reporter was asking a simple question that went unanswered:
Ari, other than Elliott Abrams, how many convicted criminals are on the
White House staff?

 You can find transcripts of Mokhiber's many exchanges with Fleischer
posted at www.commondreams.org -- under the heading Ari and I -- examples
of unflinching questions and slimy evasions at the White House.

 Thank you, Helen Thomas. Thank you, Russell Mokhiber. It sure is
refreshing to see journalists doing their jobs instead of going along to
get along.

_
Norman Solomon is co-author, with foreign correspondent Reese Erlich, of
Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You 

[pjnews] Talking Points on Iraq

[parallax]

From: pbennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Institute for Policy Studies

UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
Talking Points -- week of 13 January 2003

- The inspectors have found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs) in Iraq. Not only is there no smoking gun, there's no gun at all. Even
with some of Washington's intelligence, supposedly proving the presence of WMD
programs, provided to the UN inspectors, they have not found any evidence. The
U.S. refuses to turn over all the intelligence information it claims it has to
the UN. 

- The Bush administration's claim that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq prove
evidence of a nuclear weapons program turns out to be false. The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report said that the tubes are much more consistent
with a conventional rocket program than with nuclear weapons. 

- International support for war is lower than ever. Both Britain and France
have asserted that the inspection process is proceeding and is not close to
being finished. Turkey has pulled back from its earlier hints that it would
allow U.S. troops full access to its territory and bases. 

- Getting support from the UN is more difficult than ever. Security Council
members are still angry over the U.S. seizure of the Iraqi arms declaration,
resulting in only a heavily edited version being made available to the 10
elected members, and the exclusion of all references to U.S. and allied
corporations involved in supporting Iraq's WMD programs in the past. 

- It is possible that the U.S. will be unable to get the necessary 9 positive
Council votes supporting a war. There could be as many as seven abstentions
(possibly including France, Russia, China, Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan,
Cameroon, Guinea). 

- The North Korea nuclear crisis is one more piece of evidence that this war
against Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction; if it was, North Korea
(which is much further along with nuclear weapons, is making direct threats
against the U.S., and has thrown out the UN inspectors) would be a much more
immediate target than Iraq (which has NO nuclear weapons or capacity, is not
threatening the U.S. and is welcoming in the UN inspectors). 

- U.S. military leaders, who went public with their cautions during the spring
and summer but disappeared since the fall of 2002, have reemerged with their
hesitations. The commanders of the Army and the Marine Corps have recently
stated that war with Iraq will not be an easy victory, and that the U.S.
military will pay a bloody price. 

- UN humanitarian agencies recently said that 500,000 Iraqis would be injured
in the early stage of a U.S. war, that up to 9.5 million Iraqis would
immediately become dependent on aid agencies for basic food. UN planning
anticipates providing emergency food only to about half of those in need - up
to 4.5 million people; of those in need of food, the UN estimates that about 3
million will face dire malnutrition. Less than half the population would
retain access to clean water. The UN describes a U.S. war in Iraq resulting in
a crippled nation with shattered infrastructure, an electricity grid badly
damaged, and facing major damage to the oil industry, with overall civilian
damage anticipated at levels far beyond that of the 1991 Gulf War. 

- Even if evidence of a WMD program is found, there is no basis for war. We
cannot accept the legitimacy of killing potentially hundreds of thousands of
Iraqis to prevent a speculative future threat. We reject going to war on spec.

[pjnews] Republicans Oppose the War With Iraq

[parallax]

The Full-page Ad from the Wall Street Journal, Monday, January 13, 2003

[Note: The Wall Street Journal is the largest circulation newspaper in the
United States]
 
A Republican Dissent on Iraq.
 
To President Bush, his advisors and the American People:
Let’s be clear: We supported the Gulf War.
We supported our intervention in Afghanistan.
We accept the logic of a just war.

But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just
war.

The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our
dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions.
That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our
country back.

War is the most extreme action a society can take. It can only be unleashed
after exploring every other road. You have not explored all the roads.
How many young American lives will be lost in this dubious war? How many more
innocent Iraqis will be killed and maimed and made homeless? Haven’t they
suffered enough, after two decades of terrible wars and sanctions?

Among the one billion Muslims in the world there is now a steady trickle of
recruits going to Al Qaeda. You will turn the trickle into a torrent. A billion
bitter enemies will rise out of this war.

And out of war may rise an Iraqi regime every bit as brutish as the present
one. What will you do then? Our jaws drop when we read that you may decide we
have to occupy Iraq for years, that the next ruler of Iraq may be…an American
general! Is there anyone who thinks that will work? Your odds of success are
infinitesimal!

The world wants Saddam Hussein disarmed. But you must find a better way to do
it. Why would you lead us into a situation where we are bound to fail? You
cannot keep proclaiming peace while preparing for war. You are waltzing
blindfolded into what may well be a catastrophe. Pride goeth before a fall.
Show the humility and compassion that led us to elect you.

A BILLION BITTER ENEMIES WILL RISE OUT OF THIS WAR.
 
War with Iraq is not inevitable. Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your
place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your
convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and—above all—to your elected
leaders in Washington.
 
The following are listed as signers:

* Edward H. Hamm, Republican Regent, former Chairman, The Northland Company
* Richard S. Johnson, Founder, former CEO, Hotjobs.com
* Barbara Lifflander, President, Hastings Art Ltd.
* Huyler C. Held, Esq.
* John C. Haas, Rohm  Haas (Ret.)
* Howard S. Brembeck, Founder, CTB Inc., Chairman, Fourth Freedom Forum
* Betty B. Blauner
* Peter A. Benoliel, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Quaker Chemical
Corporation
* Vice Admiral (ret.) John J. Shanahan
* Chris Berghoff
* Starr Tomczak, Attorney
* George Zeo, Psy. D.
* Professor Jeffrey G. Barlow, Ph.D.
* Linda and Larry Black, Owners, College Park Bicycles, Inc. and Mt. Airy
Bicycles, Inc.
* Albert Lowe
* Roger Mumford, President, Matzel and Mumford Org.
* Martin Resick, Chapter President, World Federalist Assn., Pittsburgh, PA
* Paul Hally, Esq.
* Elizabeth Viering
* Peter B. Viering, Atty.
* Brenda Ungerland, M.A., LifePath
* Brooks Jealous
* Nancy F. Puls
* Pamela Davis
* Frank K. Martin, CFA, Managing Partner, Martin Capital Management, LLP

Affiliations for identification only.
 
It has a clip-out donation form, giving the address as:
 
BUSINESS LEADERS FOR SENSIBLE PRIORITIES
P.O. Box 1976 Old Chelsea Station
New York, NY 10113
 
Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution of $___. Please use it to help
prevent a potentially disastrous war in Iraq.
 
TrueMajority.com
TrueMajority is a partner in Win Without War.

[pjnews] 1/18 Protest Updates

[parallax]

SATURDAY JANUARY 18 

On the Martin Luther Kinganniversary weekend and the 12th anniversary of the
Gulf War The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own
government ...for the sake of humanity I cannot be silent Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. 

Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

NO WAR ON IRAQ NATIONAL MARCHES ON WASHINGTON  SAN FRANCISCO

The people of Iraq and the Middle East are not our enemy. It will be up to the
people to stop Bush. Poverty is soaring while social programs are being
diverted for a war and occupation of Iraq. The government plans to spend $2
trillion so that ExxonMobil, Chevron, Citibank, Bank of America and other Big
Oil and banking corporations profit from the oil of the Persian/Arabian Gulf.
Bush's goal of regime change in Iraq is not to create a more democratic or
humane government, but a U.S. puppet regime in this oil-rich region. Bush is
lying when he says that Iraq poses a grave and imminent danger. Remember these
facts: The U.S. bombs Iraq almost every day but Iraq is not bombing the United
States. Iraq has never possessed a nuclear weapon but the U.S. government has
6,000 nuclear weapons. A new war will be a catastrophe. In the 1991 Gulf War,
as many as 200,000 Iraqis were slaughtered. The Pentagon made massive use of
depleted uranium weapons, subjecting civilians and soldiers to vast toxic
exposure. According to the Veterans Administration, over 30% of U.S. Gulf War
veterans are receiving disability benefits for illness and injury. Nearly 2
million Iraqi civilians, mostly children, have already died from a U.S.-
imposed economic blockade in the last twelve years. At the same time, the U.S.
daily sends $15 million to support Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
When U.S. war planes and attack helicopters kill innocent people every day in
Palestine or in Iraq, this is nothing less than U.S.-supported terrorism. The
thousands of people marching in Washington D.C. and San Francisco on January 18
honor Dr. Martin Luther King and his legacy. Like Dr. King did during the
Vietnam War, we will demand that hundreds of billions of dollars be spent on
jobs, education, housing, healthcare and to meet human needs, not for wars of
aggression in the Third World.
BECOME A VOLUNTEER! 

Endorse the mobilization. Help get the word out! Pass out flyers and posters
everywhere you go. For flyers download at www.nationalAnswer.org
http://www.nationalanswer.org/ or contact a regional organizing center. Bring
people to SF or DC! Contact the organizing center nearest you for local
meetings and to get on the bus, or begin organizing transportation from your
area.

$200 BILLION FOR JOBS AND EDUCATION NOTFORWAR IN IRAQ! 
Millions of people around the world are marching for peace.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE In the case of a new U.S. war against Iraq:

JOIN THE PEOPLE'S ANTI-WAR REFERENDUM 
Cast your vote today at www.VoteNoWar.org 
http://www.votenowar.org/

REGIONAL ORGANIZING CENTERS
* San Francisco: 2489 Mission St. Rm. 24, SF, CA 94110 415-821-6545,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
* Los Angeles: 213-487-2368 
* San Diego: 619-692-4422 
* Sacramento: 916-448-7157 
* Davis: 530-304-4573 
* Chico: 530-893-9078 
* Nevada City/Grass Valley: 530-470-9797 
* Placerville/El Dorado: 530-642-1120 
* Stockton: 209-467-4455 
* Modesto: 209-484- 0226 
* Fresno: 559-485-6356 
* Santa Clara: 408-855-0715 
* Santa Cruz: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
* Salinas: 831-754-5544 
* Santa Rosa: 707-579-5867 
* Redding/Shasta: 530-275-8559 
* Eureka/Arcata: 707-443-7926 
* Ukiah: 707-468-1660 
* Marin: 415-721-2844 
* Walnut Creek: 925-256-8780 
* Reno: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
* Seattle: 206-325-0085 
* Spokane: 509-838-7870 
* So. Oregon: 541-482- 6543 
* Portland: 513-725-2965 
* Whitefish/Missoula, MT: 406-863-2004 
* Tucson: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
* Phoenix/Tempe: 480-768-9237 
* Washington, DC: 202-544-3389 
* and dozens more! To find the organizing center nearest you, check:
http://www.iacenter.org

--

Your HELP is NEEDED / UPDATE on Jan. 18 Nat'l March

There are now buses, vans and car caravans traveling from over 200 cities in
over 45 states to be in Washington DC and San Francisco on January 18. Groups
are traveling from as far South as Texas and Florida, as far north as North
Dakota, Minnesota and Maine, from every state on the East Coast, and from all
over the West Coast, to be in Washington DC. 

The January 18 National March in Washington DC to Stop the War on Iraq Before
it Starts will begin at 11 am at 3rd St. on the Mall, which is on the West side
of the Capitol Building. We will rally and then march to the Washington Navy
Yard. 

FOR BUSES TO DC  SF go to:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/j18/j18contacts.html 

FOR ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS (bus drop off  pick up, bus/car/van parking,
directions, metro maps, etc.) go to:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/j18/logistics.html or call our
Washington DC office at 202-544-3389

***
HUNDREDS OF VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED in many different areas 

[pjnews] The MLK You Don't See On TV

[parallax]

Media Beat, January 4, 1995
The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon

It's become a TV ritual: Every year in mid-January, around the time of
Martin Luther King's birthday, we get perfunctory network news reports
about the slain civil rights leader.

The remarkable thing about this annual review of King's life is that
several years-- his last years-- are totally missing, as if flushed down a
memory hole.

What TV viewers see is a closed loop of familiar file footage: King
battling desegregation in Birmingham (1963); reciting his dream of racial
harmony at the rally in Washington (1963); marching for voting rights in
Selma, Alabama (1965); and finally, lying dead on the motel balcony in
Memphis (1968).

An alert viewer might notice that the chronology jumps from 1965 to 1968.
Yet King didn't take a sabbatical near the end of his life. In fact, he
was speaking and organizing as diligently as ever.

Almost all of those speeches were filmed or taped. But they're not shown
today on TV.

Why?

It's because national news media have never come to terms with what Martin
Luther King Jr. stood for during his final years.

In the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial
discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV
and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips
and cattle prods used against Southern blacks who sought the right to vote
or to eat at a public lunch counter.

But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began
challenging the nation's fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil
rights laws were empty without human rights-- including economic rights.
For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King
said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow.

Noting that a majority of Americans below the poverty line were white,
King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps
between rich and poor, and called for radical changes in the structure of
our society to redistribute wealth and power.

True compassion, King declared, is more than flinging a coin to a
beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs
restructuring.

By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the
Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he
deemed militaristic. In his Beyond Vietnam speech delivered at New
York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967-- a year to the day before he was
murdered-- King called the United States the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world today.

[pjnews] Canadian Dissent over Iraq War Plans

[parallax]

MP Contacts:
Carolyn Parrish - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / phone: (613) 995-7321
Colleen Beaumier - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / phone: (613) 995-5381
John Godfrey - email [EMAIL PROTECTED] / phone: (613) 992-2855
Carolyn Bennett - email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / phone (613) 995-9666



Liberal dissent brewing in Iraq crisis Mississauga MP threatens to quit

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout
/Article_Type1c=Articlecid=1035776596037call_pageid=968332188492co 
l=968793972154

Toronto Star 
January 14, 2003
TIM HARPER OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA—A Liberal MP from the GTA says she will resign from caucus if her
government joins any U.S.-led strike against Iraq that does not have United
Nations approval. 

This is crazy, Mississauga Centre MP Carolyn Parrish said yesterday. I don't
think we should be helping Americans get away with this. This is just the boys
playing with their big toys and, although we can't stop the Americans, we don't
have to legitimize this. 

Parrish has support within the Liberal caucus, many of whom appear to have been
taken aback by a perceived shift in Canada's position announced last week by
Defence Minister John McCallum. 

At best, many say they are now confused. At worst, they are predicting a new
round of caucus dissent for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien should he contribute
to U.S. President George W. Bush's Iraq mission without U.N. blessing. 

That door was opened in Washington last Thursday after McCallum met his
American counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld. 

The next day, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham also said there could be a
set of circumstances whereby Ottawa joins a campaign without U.N. backing, as
it did in the 1999 bombing over Kosovo, a mission led by Washington and NATO. 

Yet a number of Liberal MPs said yesterday they left for their Christmas break
after being assured by Chrétien their government would take its orders from the
United Nations, not Washington. 

I can't believe McCallum is down in Washington farting around like this,
making stupid statements, Parrish said. 

This party is in a pretty shaky state right now, so I'm not looking to lead a
parade of 50 of us across the aisle and force an election. 

But I'm prepared to sit as an Independent. 

Others also predict internal trouble for Chrétien if the Canadian position is
not clarified. 

There are a lot more problems looming within caucus if they do not stick to
their multilateral approach, said Brampton West-Mississauga MP Colleen
Beaumier, who will travel to Iraq this weekend to see the situation firsthand. 

She said Chrétien has assured her the Canadian position has not changed, but
she admits to confusion. 

I would definitely be opposed to this if we went in there as any part of a
cowboy mission (without the U.N.), Beaumier said. 

John Godfrey (Don Valley West) said he could find no appetite in his riding for
Canada's involvement in a U.S.-led campaign. 

He said he could back his government's involvement without U.N. backing only in
two very extreme cases — if the U.N. deadlocked and was unable to make a
decision, or if there was indisputable proof that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them on a neighbour. 

Otherwise, I would be opposed to any such action, he said. 

MP Carolyn Bennett, who represents St. Paul's in Toronto, said she backs
constituents who have been flooding her Web site saying there can be no
Canadian participation in a Washington-led offensive. 

We urge you, one constituent said in a message posted on her Web site, on
our behalf, to stay the line and not join without U.N. support. We feel so
strongly about this that it would affect our vote in the next election, even
though we have been Liberal supporters for more than 30 years. 

Bennett said the apparent change has not simply caused concern within the
Liberal caucus. 

This has concerned Canadians everywhere and (MPs) would like some assurance
we're going to be consistent on waiting for U.N. authority, she said. 

Officials in Chrétien's office have been trying desperately to get their
message back on track. 

Prudence is the watchword, one spokesperson said, adding the Liberals will be
very cautious about any commitments to take part in military action against
Saddam. 

While Ottawa is keeping all options open, the government has not changed its
long-held position that any attack on Iraq should be done through a United
Nations-backed coalition, the spokesperson said. 

Parrish headed a delegation of nine MPs who visited the West Bank, Gaza Strip
and Israel last May. The trip was funded by Palestine House, a Palestinian
cultural centre based in Mississauga. 

The MPs — three Liberal backbenchers, one New Democrat, four members of the
Bloc Québécois and one independent — produced a report accusing Israel of
resorting to increasingly harsh tactics that had left Palestinians living in
sub-human conditions. 

Meanwhile, a national 

[pjnews] DC: 100,000+ Oppose Rush to War

[parallax]

NPR Gives 2 Minutes to WorldWide Protests, and 10 Minutes to Queen's Pants

While Pacifica radio devoted the entire day to coverage of the antiwar protests 
in DC and SF, listener-supported NPR spent exactly 2 minutes of its evening 
news coverage on the story. What did they cover instead? 10 minutes of idle 
transatlantic chitchat with a British journalist about the Queen's shocking 
public appearance in slacks following knee surgery.  Send your complaints to  
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and tell them you'll remember at pitch time.

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgDate=01/18/2003prgId=2

--

A Stirring in the Nation
January 20, 2003
NY Times

A largely missing ingredient in the nascent debate about invading Iraq showed 
up on the streets of major cities over the weekend as crowds of peaceable 
protesters marched in a demand to be heard. They represented what appears to be 
a large segment of the American public that remains unconvinced that the Iraqi 
threat warrants the use of military force at this juncture. 

Denouncing the war plan as an administration idée fixe that will undermine
America's standing in the world, stir unrest in the Mideast and damage the
American economy, the protesters in Washington massed on Saturday for what
police described as the largest antiwar rally at the Capitol since the Vietnam
era. It was impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers - from
young college students to grayheads with vivid protest memories of the 60's.
They gathered from near and far by the tens of thousands, galvanized by the
possibility that President Bush will soon order American forces to attack Iraq
even without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. 

Mr. Bush and his war cabinet would be wise to see the demonstrators as a clear
sign that noticeable numbers of Americans no longer feel obliged to salute the
administration's plans because of the shock of Sept. 11 and that many harbor
serious doubts about his march toward war. The protesters are raising some
nuanced questions in the name of patriotism about the premises, cost and
aftermath of the war the president is contemplating. Millions of Americans who
did not march share the concerns and have yet to hear Mr. Bush make a
persuasive case that combat operations are the only way to respond to Saddam
Hussein. 

Other protests will be emphasizing civil disobedience in the name of Martin
Luther King Jr. But any graphic moments to come of confrontation and arrest
should be seen in the far broader context of the Capitol scene: peaceable
throngs of mainstream Americans came forward demanding more of a dialogue from
political leaders. Mr. Bush and his aides, to their credit, welcomed the
demonstrations as a healthy manifestation of American democracy at work. We
hope that spirit will endure in the weeks ahead if differences deepen and a
noisier antiwar movement develops. These protests are the tip of a far broader
sense of concern and lack of confidence in the path to war that seems to lie
ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/20/opinion/20MON2.html?ex=1044066790ei=1en=
91842cd540162e62

--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12152-2003Jan18.html

Thousands Oppose a Rush to War 
Chill Doesn't Cool Fury Over U.S. Stand on Iraq 

By Manny Fernandez and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 19, 2003; Page A01 

Tens of thousands of antiwar demonstrators converged on Washington
yesterday, making a thunderous presence in the bitter cold and assembling
in the shadow of the Capitol dome to oppose a U.S. military strike against
Iraq.

Throughout a morning rally on the Mall and an afternoon march to the
Washington Navy Yard in Southeast, activists criticized the Bush
administration for rushing into a war that they claimed would kill
thousands of Iraqi civilians, spell disaster for the national economy and
set a dangerous and unjustified first-strike precedent for U.S. foreign
policy.

They delivered that message on a day when being outdoors tested everyone's
endurance. Men, women and children fought off temperatures no higher than
24 degrees in ski masks and goggles, stashes of hot soup in containers in
their backpacks. Many sneaked away momentarily to warm up on an idling bus
or to grab a cup of coffee.

The world is cold, but our hearts are warm, Jesse Jackson told the crowd
to applause. He was one of many speakers, who included civil rights leader
Al Sharpton from New York, actress Jessica Lange and Rep. John Conyers
Jr. (D-Mich.).

Organizers of the demonstration, the activist coalition International
ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), said the protest was larger
than one they sponsored in Washington in October. District police
officials suggested then that about 100,000 attended, and although some
organizers agreed, they have since put the number closer to 200,000. This
time, they said, the turnout was 500,000. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey
would not 

[pjnews] Global Protest Delivers a Resounding 'No!'

[parallax]

see also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19221-2003Jan20.html
France Vows to Block Iraq War Resolution


Published on Sunday, January 19, 2003 by the lndependent/UK

Global Protest Delivers a Resounding 'No!'
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world stage mass demonstrations
against conflict with Iraq

by Jo Dillon, James Morrison and Andrew Buncombe

They united in protest. A builder in Bradford, a Glasgow nurse, a London office
worker and his opposite number in Tokyo, a Vietnam veteran in Washington DC and
a Russian bank clerk, a Pakistani schoolboy, a Cairo shopworker, a Parisian
housewife and a doctor in Damascus. They all came together in a single act of
defiance. Hundreds of thousands of people across the world joined in a common
aim, across cultural divides and language barriers to say No.

As around 100,000 troops from Britain and America made their way to the Gulf,
their numbers were dwarfed by the ranks of ordinary men and women who took to
the streets in cities around the world to condemn war on Iraq. And the
demonstrators' clear message to their leaders was echoed in a swelling chorus
of generals, defense experts, actors, musicians, writers and artists speaking
out against threatened military action.

Their call may not be heeded but it was loud enough to be heard.

In Washington, American citizens staged the biggest peace demonstration since
the days of the Vietnam war. I'm a Vietnam veteran, said David Mastrianni,
55, a software engineer from Southington, Connecticut, who had traveled down
with his wife, Nancy, determined to protect against another generation being
sent off to war.

Mr Mastrianni was an easy-going man, not especially haunted by the time he
spent between 1968 and 1969 as a drafted army engineer at Long Binh, outside of
what was then Saigon. He was more haunted, he said, by the idea of allowing a
war to take place without making his protest. It was the first time that either
he or his wife had been to a peace demonstration. Maybe we have learnt our
lessons, and we have learnt not to believe everything our government tells us,
said Mrs Mastrianni.

There were many protesters like the Mastriannis: peace-demo virgins who for
various reasons felt this was the time to join in, to listen to more than 50
speakers rally against military action and then to join the tens of thousands
on a march to the US Navy Yard in Washington and demand in vain to inspect
America's own weapons of mass destruction.

Never had their message been received by so many people in the mainstream,
said organizers.You are talking to the broader base now, said Susan Riley, a
nurse from Minneapolis.

Outside the Permanent Joint Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in
Northwood, north-west London, hundreds gathered to hear the veteran Labour
leftwinger Tony Benn warn of massive opposition across Britain to the
prospect of war: 2,000 were in Shannon, Ireland, 2,500 in Liverpool, 1,500 in
Cardiff, 2,000 in Bradford, 250 in Glasgow ...

The protesters were in good company. Sir Michael Quinlan, former permanent
secretary at the Ministry of Defense, this weekend told The Independent on
Sunday that war was disproportionate. Major-General Julian Thompson, a senior
Falklands veteran, admitted he was not persuaded of the case for war at the
moment. I also don't think that Saddam Hussein is necessarily the right
target, he added. And defense analyst Paul Beaver urged a second mandate
from the UN before war was contemplated.

There was outright opposition too from the actress Juliet Stevenson, who
insisted: This is not our war, and not one we should have got involved in.
The screenwriter Alan Bleasdale said he was horrified at the prospect of war,
and Corin Redgrave, the actor, called for civil disobedience and industrial
action. Body Shop founder Anita Roddick said: Shame on Bush and Blair for
threatening their illegal and immoral war.

Some in the arts world are determined to take further action. The actress Julie
Christie is urging performers to support a public declaration against war. Her
No War Pledge, already signed by 40 prominent names and organizations,
including the actress Emma Thompson, the comedian Victoria Wood and the
film-maker Mike Leigh, is to be posted in a national newspaper to coincide with
the 27 January deadline for the presentation of the UN weapons inspectors'
report.

The pledge describes war on Iraq as immoral and contrary to international
law, urges the British government to withhold support for it and calls on all
who support peace and respect international law to take a similar stand.
Voices against war: actors writers, warriors, citizens

Paul Beaver, defense analyst
I would like to see a second mandate from the United Nations. I don't want
Britain to squander its position within the Arab and Muslim world by unilateral
action with the US. Another reason against it is that this is a campaign which,
if the country is going to invest in it, will cost us around £1bn.

[pjnews] Stop the Rush Towards War

[parallax]

From: Bob Goodsell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Phone campaign for this week 
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:52:20 -0500 

Pardon my lack of humility, but I just had what I think is a great idea. We
start a campaign called Don't Stand For It! which encourages people to call
their congresspeople asking them not to stand and applaud any pro-war
statements that Bush makes in his State of the Union address. If none of you
can tell me why this isn't a great idea in the next few hours, I'll send out a
general e-mail that can be forwarded to anyone that has the phone numbers and
links to addresses. Maybe I can get MoveOn or TrueMajority to push it. I have
so often been disgusted to see both sides of the aisle stand and applaud even
the most ridiculous statements coming from presidents, and it has to send a
very bad statement to others in the world. We used to laugh at the unanimity of
the Politburo in Moscow, but is Congress any different? Let's call and tell
them not to stand for it!

---

Call the permanent (France, Russia, China + US and UK)) and
non-permanent (Bulgaria, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, Syria, Angola, Chile,
Germany, Pakistan, Spain) members of the UN Security Council and ask them not
to support a war against Iraq.  Receiving a thousand phone calls would send a 
clear message of non-support from the
American people, and help the SC members resist the overtures and bribes of the
US administration.  To pass a resolution, the SC must generate nine yes votes 
and no vetoes (contact info is at the end of this e-mail).

Working in our favor is the fact that the rotating presidency of the Security
Council is held in January by France, and in February by Germany, two clear
foes of an attact against Iraq.

Also  remember to call (202-456-) and email [EMAIL PROTECTED] the
administration EVERY DAY to express your opposition to the Iraq war.

---

Short of a 'Smoking Gun,' Allies Ask Why the Rush?
January 22, 2003 
By JULIA PRESTON 
NY Times

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 21 - Pakistan and Bulgaria have a lot in common these
days. They are both recent but energetic allies of the United States, both
members of the Security Council - and both hesitant to authorize war against
Iraq in the near future. 

If the inspectors say they want some time, I think that time should be given,
the Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, said of United Nations
arms inspections in an interview today. 

In a separate interview, the Bulgarian foreign minister, Solomon Passy, said,
We will still invest the maximum effort to avoid a military solution. 

At a meeting of Council foreign ministers here on Monday, Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell met considerable resistance from three other permanent,
veto-bearing Council members - China, Russia and especially France - to
military action against Iraq in coming weeks. The chief weapons inspectors will
give a report to the Council on Monday, and American officials have said that
they might use that event to make their case for war. 

But in private meetings with 12 other ministers, Mr. Powell also heard much
reluctance from the 10 nonpermanent members, diplomats said today. 

Many of them argued that the inspections are just starting to work to pressure
Iraq to disclose its illegal weapons, diplomats said. They said that without a
smoking gun to prove Baghdad's defiance, they would have a hard time at this
point convincing skeptics at home that war is justified. 

We still have to work with public opinion, Mr. Passy said. 

Generally the nonpermanent members have much less influence than the permanent
powers. But during the long negotiations over Resolution 1441, which set up the
current inspections, the United States strengthened its hand against opposition
from France by diligently marshaling votes from the nonpermanent members. For
adoption, Council resolutions require nine votes in favor and no vetoes. 

The profile of the nonpermanent members was raised this year with the arrival
on the Council of Germany, which is more powerful economically than Europe's
permanent member countries, France and Britain. The German foreign minister,
Joschka Fischer, said on Monday that Iraq must comply with Council resolutions,
but he warned that premature war could unleash a new wave of terrorism. 

Mr. Kasuri said it is crucial for Pakistan, which just joined the Council on
Jan. 1, to have an air-tight case against Iraq to present at home to avoid a
destabilizing anti-American backlash. 

We have to present this in a way that people know it is not a selective
application of Security Council resolutions, he said. He pointed to several
decades-old resolutions seeking a solution to Pakistan's bitter fight with
India over the territory of Kashmir, which he said have not been enforced the
way Washington wants to enforce resolutions on Iraq. 

His country, he said, feels no sympathy for President Saddam Hussein of Iraq,
who has lent his backing to India in the Kashmir 

[pjnews] CORRECTION to NPR Protest Coverage info

[parallax]

After my e-mail yesterday, someone wrote back:

I like to check things out before I forward them to friends, or write to
ombudsmen. Not that I think NPR did an adequate job of covering the
protests, to the contrary, I think it was at best a sophomoric, trite, sound
bite, but this is what I've found regarding the times of their stories.

I don't know about the minutes of actual broadcast on NPR, but the NPR
website that your story below gives, up loads a war protest story 4:56.8
long, and a story on the queens trousers that's 3:52.5. They also ran a
story about Turkey's effort to divert war clocking in at 3:46.6.

While I can complain about them in comparison to Pacifica, or the
inadequacy of their demonstration coverage in general, I cannot send your
complaint about story length to the NPR ombudsman.

Please take care, lest our small miscalculations be used as examples of
our lack of integrity.


And someone else wrote:

I haven't been all that enamored of NPR's coverage, but you misrepresent them 
in this email.  They did give five minutes of coverage, not two.  Why 
exaggerate the lack of coverage?


Sorry for the oversight on my part.  I should have looked into this before 
sending it out.  And thanks to all of you for pointing this out.

Scott

[pjnews] Return of American Imperialism

[parallax]

EMBRACING THE I WORD: 
THE UNAPOLOGETIC RETURN OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
By William D. Hartung

In my days as a student activist in the 1970s, the term imperialism 
only turned up in the American political debate as part of a critique of
U.S. policy by someone in the anti-war or international solidarity
movements, or in the writings of left-wing academics or members of small
socialist splinter groups.   So you can imagine my surprise, thirty
years later, to see the notions of imperialism and American empire
gaining a degree of mainstream respectability, this time promoted by a
strange convergence of right-wing unilateralists and liberal
humanitarian interventionists who see unbridled American power as the
last, best hope for building a more stable world.

The most recent case in point was the glaring red, white and blue cover
story in the New York Times Magazine of January 5, 2003, American
Empire (Get Used to It).  In a provocative essay that masquerades as a
realist critique, longtime human rights advocate Michael Ignatieff
suggests that Americans are in a sense of deep denial over their
country's imperial role, and are therefore ill-equipped to understand
the roots of our brave new post-9/11 world.  

A number of Ignatieff's themes are picked up in Jay Tolson's January
13th cover story in U.S. News and World Report, The American Empire: Is
the U.S. Trying to Shape the World?  Should It?, which asserts that in
the wake of September 11th, the United States now knows that peace,
prosperity and the spread of human rights are not automatically
guaranteed.  Their survival will require the expenditure of American
will and might.   

For his part, Ignatieff sums up the nature of America's imperial
burden as follows:

Being an imperial power . . . is more than being the most powerful 
nation or just the most hated one.  It means enforcing such order as there is 
in the world and doing so in the American interest.  It means laying down the 
rules America wants (on everything from markets to weapons of mass destruction) 
while exempting itself from other rules (the Kyoto protocol on climate change 
and the International Criminal Court) that go against its interest. It also 
means carrying out imperial functions in places America has inherited from the 
failed empires of the 20th century - Ottoman, British, and Soviet.  In the 21st 
century, America rules alone, struggling to manage the insurgent zones - 
Palestine and the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan, to name but two - that have 
proved to be the nemeses
of empires past. 
   
To make a long story short, in Ignatieff's view, policing the globe is
a tough job, but hey, somebody's got to do it, so it might as well be
America.  After all, if you take the Bush administration's national
security strategy document at face value, the United States wants to be
a selfless imperial overlord that seeks no advantage for itself, but is
merely attempting to usher in an era of liberal democracy and free
markets for all.  Ignatieff accepts the administration's claim that its
proposed war in Iraq is not about projecting U.S. power, or gaining
leverage over global oil resources: it is, in his words, the first in a
series of struggles to contain the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, the first attempt to shut off the potential supply of
lethal technologies to a global terrorist network.  

Never mind the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that Iraq has
operational links to Al Qaeda, or that the most likely source of nuclear
weapons or nuclear materials for global terrorist groups lies in
Russia's vast, poorly guarded nuclear stockpiles, or that military force
is a uniquely ineffective tool for stemming the spread of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons.  Ignatieff has bought into the
Pentagon's self-serving notion of wars of counter-proliferation, and
he sees it as just one of the inevitable burdens of the American
empire.

Why would a human rights advocate like Ignatieff want to embrace
American imperialism?  Because, he asserts, there are many peoples who
owe their freedom to an exercise of American military power, from the
Germans and Japanese in the aftermath of World War II to the Bosnians,
Kosovars, Afghans, and most inconveniently of all, the Iraqis, more
recently.  Ignatieff's roster of freedom conveniently overlooks the
millions of people around the world - Guatemalans, Chileans, Brazilians,
Indonesians, Iranians, and to some degree, even Afghans and Iraqis - who
lost decades of potential freedom as a result of the actions of regimes
armed, supported, and in many cases installed by the U.S. government.  

And it is far from clear that the new, post-Cold War version of
American interventionism will result in viable democracies in
Afghanistan or Iraq, even as the Bush administration's choice of allies
in its war on terrorism has led it to arm and aid a motley collection of
undemocratic regimes from Djibouti to Uzbekistan.   But 

[pjnews] Assistance Needed (parody)

[parallax]

This will be funny to those of you who have received Nigeria Scam type e-
mails...


URGENT ASSISTANCE - FROM USA 
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED :
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH
202.456.1414 / 202.456.
FAX: 202.456.2461

DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT 
MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH 
FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 
TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT 
REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN 
ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY 
PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY 
FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE 
UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING 
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A 
FALLING-OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL 
REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-
BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-
ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST, THIRTY-SIX 
BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM 
OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS 
($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI 
BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM 
RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS 
COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. 
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF 
THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION 
TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 - $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE 
INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.

WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE 
OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE 
URGENTLY! SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN 
THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ 
VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, 
WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF 
A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.

I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-
25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. 
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS 
OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE 
FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.

I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND 
WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A 
BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED 
THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. 

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR 
INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER. I PRAY THAT YOU 
UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. 
PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

[pjnews] Successful Anti-war Activist Victories

[parallax]

Some great signs of hope in these depressing times from the activist group 
moveon.org


Dear MoveOn member,

Thank you.  This week exceeded our wildest dreams.

Our plan was to launch an anti-war television ad campaign, hold 12
local press conferences, grow our Let the Inspections Work petition,
and have meetings in Congressional offices around the country.  We knew
it would be big.  But we never thought it would be this big.

That we were able to reach so far and do so much is because of you.

You made it all possible.

We didn't expect, frankly, to have 100,000 new members join our
organization this week.  We didn't expect to be able to deliver a
petition with over 310,000 American signers -- the largest since 
MoveOn's inception. (We're told that when Senator Diane Feinstein's 
aide saw the petition, his eyes opened wide.  He said that this was 
the biggest petition he recalled them receiving.  Feinstein's 
segment was over 8,000 pages long.)

We never thought that our ad -- carrying the Let the Inspections
Work message -- would be aired on virtually every major TV news show.
We never thought George Stephanopoulos would show it to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld and grill him on the dangers of war.  We never
imagined it would be broadcast and discussed on news programs in
Australia, Pakistan, Russia, and Japan.

We didn't anticipate that a new national poll, taken on the very days
our story was playing everywhere, would show public support for war
plummeting, or that this poll would be the top story in today's 
Washington Post.

We didn't anticipate that local press conferences, staffed by MoveOn
members in 12 cities, would generate front-page stories on the new
breadth and tactics of the anti-war movement.

And then there are the Congressional meetings.

We had high hopes for the meetings that occurred yesterday in
Congressional districts across the country.  After all, 9,000 folks
had signed up to participate, and we had an incredible team of over
800 local volunteers and 12 tireless volunteer regional coordinators
who were working to set everything up.  But, after a week of continual
surprises, our expectations yesterday were once again exceeded.

One comment sums up the experience of many:

It was fantastic! Probably the best meeting I've ever been at - ever.
18 regular people who came together as strangers, were in agreement
with one another, speaking eloquently, passionately, respectfully and
from the heart.  The member went on to say, As a former Congressional 
staff person, I know this was truly impactful and meaningful.

The impact was pretty clear.  Yesterday alone, over 30 members of
Congress signed onto a Dear Colleague letter to the President, asking
him to let the inspectors do their jobs and abide by the UN process.
It's pretty remarkable -- Congress is taking up our petition.  And
more signers keep coming in.  In one of our most exciting moments, a
pro-war-resolution Representative took a look at the letter, listened
to our members, and then signed on the spot.  Now that's democracy in
action!

The Dear Colleague letter is just the beginning.  One Representative
from Maryland is taking our petition to the floor of the House of
Representatives.  Another offered us space in his offices to do more
anti-war organizing.  One enthusiastic Representative is even going to
join MoveOn.

[pjnews] Resolution to Repeal Authorization of Force Against Iraq

[parallax]

To listen to an interview we conducted earlier this week with TX Rep. Sheila 
Jackson-Lee, the sponsor of this bill, see: 
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/peacewatch/peace20030122.html

Scott


Actions in the House:  New Legislative Initiative to Repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution  (ACTION
REQUESTED)

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:00:07 -0500 
From: Carolyn Diem [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: actions in the House 

New legislative initiatives!
call or email your Representative and urge them to co-sponsor H.Con.Res.2 which
calls for the repeal of the war authorization act against Iraq. and sign the
Brown-Kind Dear Colleague letter to the president asking him (Bush) to commit
to continued diplomacy when he makes his State of the Nation speech. 

BACKGROUND: The introduction of H. Con. Res. 2 and the Brown-Kind letter
reflect continued and growing congressional opposition to the Bush
Administration's war plans in Iraq. Even members who voted for authorizing U.S.
military action against Iraq are expressing deep concern about the
Administration's impatience and lack of commitment to pursuing a diplomatic
solution to the conflict. The U.S. public and the international community are
expressing persistent opposition to war on Iraq, and weapons inspections are
proceeding without serious obstruction. Yet, the Administration continues to
deploy tens of thousands more troops to the Persian Gulf, is intensifying
attacks in the so-called no-fly zones, and claims the right to wage unilateral
war whenever it deems necessary. 

Pres. Bush is expected to use the State of the Union speech on Jan. 28 to
announce the next phase of U.S. policy toward Iraq. The weeks leading up to the
speech are a critical time for raising visible U.S. public opposition to war
and pressing our members of Congress to take leadership roles in moving the
country away from war. On Jan. 27 (one day before the State of the Union), the
UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will make their first official report
to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on the progress of inspections. Inspectors
have said there is no smoking gun and that they will need more cooperation,
information, and time to complete their work. U.S. allies in the European Union
and the Middle East are still working diligently to open space for a peaceful
settlement of the crisis. 

Hussein will have no reason to be cooperative if he thinks war is inevitable.

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed. (Introduced in House)

HCON 2 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 2

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. LEE, Mr. DAVIS of
Illinois, and Ms. WATSON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which
was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 should be repealed.

Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498), enacted into law on October 16,
2002, authorizes the President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq
to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

Whereas since the enactment of Public Law 107-243, Iraq has allowed
international weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq in order to identify and
destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development
capabilities;

Whereas since the enactment of Public Law 107-243, actions by North Korea
relating to its nuclear weapons capabilities pose a more immediate threat to
its neighbors and to the United States; and

Whereas in light of these circumstances, Congress should reexamine the threat
posed by Iraq, including by allowing time to review fully and accurately the
findings of the international weapons inspectors: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is
the sense of Congress that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) should be
repealed.

[pjnews] INS Detainees on Hunger Strike

[parallax]

excerpt from WORLD WAR 3 REPORT, #. 69. Jan. 20, 2003

PASSAIC DETAINEES ON HUNGER STRIKE
Seven Muslim detainees at Passaic County Jail began a hunger strike Jan. 14
to protest their continued captivity and demand that INS officials to be
punished for their mistreatment. The strikers include Farouk Abdel-Muhti, a
Palestinian activist suing the government for holding him beyond the normal
limit for immigration violations. The detainees' statement reads: We
denounce the gross violations of our human rights. We are being held
without adequate ventilation, in unclean and unhealthy quarters. We are
being denied medical care, visitation, and Islamic services. The food is
completely inadequate and non-nutritious. We ask all people to defend our
rights and to demand our freedom.

The detainees are demanding their immediate release, and release of all
other detainees who have not been charged with crimes. Most of the
detainees arrested in the government's post-9-11 sweep are held on
immigration violations. They said they're sacrificing their bodies in
order to gain their rights, said Namita Chad, of the South Asian advocacy
group DRUM. They said they're going to continue the strike until someone
from the INS meets with them. Bernard McFall, Abdel-Muhti's former
roommate in Queens, expressed concerns for his friend. His health was not
that good before he went to jail, McFall said. His blood pressure is high
and he's not eating right or getting any exercise.

INS Kerry Gill said INS guidelines define a hunger strike as a refusal of
food or drink lasting 72 hours or more. At this time, no detainees in the
Newark district have missed meals over a 72-hour period, he said. (AP,
Jan. 14)

(http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-nj--detainees-hungers0114jan14,
0,6057103.story)

As WW3 REPORT goes to press, the strike is approaching the 72-hour mark,
and authorities have increased the pressure. On Jan. 16 Wilfredo Diaz of
the New York INS regional office served Abdel-Muhti with a first warning
for failure to depart, threatening him with up to four years in prison for
his alleged refusal to cooperate with his deportation. Abdel-Muhti said he
would not sign the document without consulting his attorney. On Jan. 17
Deportation Officer Frantz Jeudi visited Abdel-Muhti and made a second
attempt to get the detainee's signature. Abdel-Muhti again insisted on his
right to an attorney, and says Jeudi then became abusive and said that if
he refused, you will lose everything.

The INS may be trying to interfere with a habeas corpus petition
Abdel-Muhti filed on Nov. 6, which charges that he has been held unlawfully
beyond the six-month period the Supreme Court set as a standard in the 2001
Zadvydas case. Abdel-Muhti does not wish to leave the US, where he has
lived for more than 25 years, but insists he has cooperated fully with
efforts to deport him. Abdel-Muhti is a stateless Palestinian, and the INS
has failed in several efforts to deport him since the 1970s because no
country would accept him.

Five of the striking detainees have accepted the INS's offer of transfer to
the Hudson County Jail, also in New Jersey--but INS officials insist they
must end their strike before they are transferred. INS spokesperson Kerry
Gill called the hunger strike disruptive behavior. The strikers have also
been strip-searched and placed in solitary confinement. One of the original
seven has since taken food, due to health concerns.

The INS is playing hardball by saying it won't even transfer the detainees
until they end the hunger strike, said Jane Guskin of the Coalition for
the Human Rights of Immigrants (CHRI). But it's the INS that provoked this
strike in the first place. They know that conditions in Passaic are below
even their own low standards... This time they pushed a group of detainees
to the point where they're willing to risk their health, even their lives.
In Farouk's case and many others, the INS is flaunting the law by refusing
to abide by the Zadvydas decision. The INS needs to stop criticizing the
detainees for taking this desperate measure and start obeying the law.

(Committee for the Release of Farouk Abdel-Muhti, Jan. 18)

Abdel-Muhti's supporters are urging pressure on INS District Director
Andrea Quarantillo, politley but firmly demanding respect for the strikers'
minimum demands:

1. improvements in food,
2. adequate and safe medical care,
3. proper air quality in the units,
4. contact family visits,
5. a resumption of the Friday Islamic services suspended a month ago
6. separate living quarters for post-9-11 detainees.

Andrea Quarantillo
District Director, INS
Newark District
970 Broad St. Rm. 136
Newark, NJ 07102
(973-645-4421)

Also contact INS assistant commissioner David Venturella in Washington (fax:
202-353-9435; phone: 202-305-2734; email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Your message can be as short as Free Farouk Abdel-Muhti and all INS
Detainees!

Thanks to: Committee for the Release of Farouk Abdel-Muhti
PO Box 20587, 

[pjnews] Western Human Shields Travel to Iraq

[parallax]

Western 'Human Shields' Head for Iraq
By REUTERS

LONDON (Reuters) - Proclaiming they were prepared to die if necessary to stop
war in Iraq, the first convoy of Western ``human shield'' volunteers drove out
of London on Saturday on double-decker buses bound for Baghdad. 

The roughly 50 volunteers, ranging from a 19-year-old factory worker to a
60-year-old former diplomat, formed the vanguard of a series of caravans
organizers say will take hundreds, possibly thousands, of anti-war activists to
Iraq. 

Dismissing criticism by some that they are naively playing into Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein's hands, the volunteers plan to fan out to heavily populated
areas of Baghdad and other parts of the country as a deterrent to possible
U.S.- led bombing. 

``We're not a bunch of nutters. We have thought about this,'' Scottish
businessman Stevan Allen, 31, told Reuters at the send-off on the banks of the
Thames river. ``I could die, but I'd rather live a short life achieving
something useful than a long one doing nothing to change the terrible state of
the world.'' 

Neither Washington nor London, who are preparing for possible military strikes
over Saddam's alleged programs to develop weapons of mass destruction, have
said if the presence of Western human shields would affect their plans. 

But the volunteers insist the possibility of Western casualties once bombing
starts will force them to re-think. 

``Our strategy is potentially dangerous but that is the risk we must take in
standing beside our brothers and sisters in Iraq,'' said former U.S. marine Ken
Nichols, whose Human Shield Action Iraq group was coordinating the London
departures. ``We have been inundated by volunteers. This is just the first
wave. I am calling for 10,000 to get down there and stop this war,'' he told
Reuters as he saw his first group off. 

ACROSS EUROPE 

Saturday's convoy -- like others planned for early February -- will travel
across Europe, picking up more people, loading provisions and stopping to
promote their cause. The three buses were led by a white taxi with a huge peace
flag on the top. 

On board were volunteers from across Europe, Canada and the United States, plus
one Norwegian-based Iraqi. 

``Let them end the sanctions, stop this crazy war and allow us Iraqis sort out
our own problems,'' 49-year-old actress Namaa Alward said as she climbed onto
the bus. 

Nichols' group is one of several around the world mobilizing peace activists to
Iraq on a variety of solidarity visits. 

The campaign has upset some among the thousands of Westerners detained by
Saddam to act as shields against attacks after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and
the ensuing 1991 Gulf War. 

They feel the volunteers do not appreciate the seriousness of what they are
doing and are unaware of their past suffering. 

``The majority went through hell on wheels,'' said Steve Brookes, who ran a
support group for British victims. ``Of the 1,800 or so British hostages, most
suffered from some form of post-traumatic stress.'' 

Many volunteers had trouble convincing their families over the mission. ``Nine
out of 10 of the people going as human shields are more scared of what their
mothers say than the bombs in Iraq,'' said lecturer Uzma Bashir, 32, from
northern England. 

In the Muslim world, the main rallying point for would-be human shields is in
Jordan. There, a campaign led by leftist parties and civic bodies is seeking
100,000 volunteers.

[pjnews] Bush Warns Joint Chiefs Against Treason

[parallax]

Report: Bush Warns Joint Chiefs Against Treason 
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012503B.bush.treason.htm 

(TRUTHOUT Editors Note | The implications of the thought process delineated
below should give everyone pause. When Rumsfeld tells his generals to get in
line for war or find another job, that is serious. When Bush lets it be known
within his administration that disagreement with his policies is tantamount to
treason, that is serious. Mr. Bush appears to be ensconced in an echo chamber
that allows only voices of approval and total support to be heard. France,
Germany, Russia and China will get on board, the echoes say. The generals are
behind us, the echoes say. Treason is an appropriate charge to level against
dissenters, the echoes say. This would not be the first time in history that a
leader is led to war by a cavalcade of yes-men. If this situation goes awry,
however, it may be the last time. - William Rivers Pitt) 

Role Reversal: Bush Wants War, Pentagon Urges Caution From Capitol Hill Blue |
CHB Investigates. . . By Doug Thompson 

Wednesday 22 January 2003 

Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow
down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration's
course of action represents too much of a shift of America's longstanding no
first strike'' policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with
other Arab nations. 

We have a dangerous role reversal here,'' one Pentagon source tells Capitol
Hill Blue. The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging
caution.'' 

Capitol Hill Blue has learned the Joint Chiefs of Staff are split over plans to
invade Iraq in the coming weeks. They have asked Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumseld to urge Bush to back down from his hard line stance until United
Nations weapons inspectors can finish their jobs and the U.S. can build a
stronger coalition in the Middle East. 

This is not Desert Storm,'' one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told
Rumseld. We don't have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don't
have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we're advocating a
policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking
us or invading any of our allies.'' 

Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may
side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations.
Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the
Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a dangerous course. 

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the
Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be
extremely angry'' at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his
role as Commander in Chief. 

The President considers this nation to be at war,'' a White House source
says,'' and, as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less
than an act of treason.'' 

But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon,
the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the
professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians to
want to send them into battle. 

Sources say the White House has ordered the FBI and CIA to find and document''
links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9-11
terrorist attacks. 

The implication is clear,'' grumbles one longtime FBI agent. Find a link, any
link, no matter how vague or unproven, and then use that link to justify action
against Iraq.'' 

While Hussein and Iraq have been linked to various terrorist groups in the
past, U.S. intelligence agencies have not been able to establish a provable
link with bin Laden's al Qaeda forces. 

There may be one,'' says another FBI source. There should be one. All logic
says there has to be one, but we haven't established it as a fact. Not yet.'' 

Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a Bush
league war,'' something that may be fought more for political gain than
anything else. 

During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to
march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and
JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation,'' says one
Pentagon officer. We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the
support. We don't have it now.'' 

Some Pentagon staffers point to last weekend's antiwar rally in Washington,
where they say the crowd included many veterans of Desert Storm. 

This wasn't just a bunch of tree huggers and longhairs marching,'' says Arnold
Giftos of Huntington, West Virginia, who served in Desert Storm and who came to
march. Go to any meeting of veterans groups in this country and you will see
serious discussion on whether or not we should be getting into this war.'' 

Reporters covering the marches on Saturday and Sunday say they 

[pjnews] Patience with my neighbours, Mr. Bush

[parallax]

Patience with my neighbours, Mr. Bush

Terry Jones
[ed. note: of Monty Python fame?]

Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's
running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a
couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health
food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning
something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've
been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got
everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources
- that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling
them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.Some of my
neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's
simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with
which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and
quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while
Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr
Patel will be secretly murdering people.

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms,
I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a
little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I
need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I
want!And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is
the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain
way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is
to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.That's why I want
to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first!
That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me
in that totally unacceptable way.Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to
know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has
weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them.

I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and
children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the
world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a
clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How
will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single
terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed
an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really
want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers,
have already eliminated themselves.Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone
who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved
his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate
Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do
would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the
iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and
who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until
I've wiped them all out.My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her
I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That
shuts her up.Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good
enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the
whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over
all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar
terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank
you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.It's just as sane as
what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my
policy will destroy only one street.

[pjnews] Failures of the Palestinian leadership

[parallax]

HA'ARETZ: January 9, 2003

Rites of death and killing
By Amira Hass

Terrible failures are highlighted by the suicide bombings in the Neve Sha'anan
quarter of Tel Aviv this week.

The failure of the official Palestinian leadership is clear. But as opposed to
what is presented in Israel, it's not an operational failure, proving a lack of
motivation to prevent attacks on Israeli civilians. It's disingenuous to claim
that Yasser Arafat, imprisoned in the Muqata in Ramallah - and needing oxygen
tanks to air out his room - could, even if he wanted to, order the security
apparatus that he no longer has, the security officers who have been arrested,
killed, or are at home, and the street spies who have been killed or wounded,
to make their way through the checkpoints and trenches that surround the
cities, to find potential suicide bombers. 

What he and his ministers and the aides around him do lack is the
moral-ideological presence that could create the social-moral pressure and
atmosphere against attacks on civilians, pressure that could work on the
organizations and on the individuals. Nowadays, there's not a single member of
the Palestinian leadership who doesn't understand how Palestinian attacks on
Israeli civilians sabotage the Palestinian cause and their own personal
interests and that of their colleagues, let alone when the murders are
committed by those who declare themselves to be the armed wing of the Fatah.
Many are genuinely shocked by the scenes of bloodshed. 

But none (if there ever were any) are left who have the charisma and authority
that inspires respect - not even Arafat. That is the result of their rule
before the intifada, when their government was perceived as making a mockery of
its duty to take care of the welfare of the people. 

The failure is also that of the more sympathetic, natural Fatah leaders on the
ground. In the best case, some of them express opposition to the bombings, but
in vague terms qualified with buts, in interviews in esoteric journals or
distant newspapers. In other cases, they speak out against the attacks from
behind closed doors or in meetings with foreign diplomats. But they don't dare
come out in the open in a planned campaign against what the conventional wisdom
says is the popular view - that is, the attacks inside Israel are an
appropriate response to the killing and destruction perpetrated by the IDF. 

True, under conditions of closures and curfews, it is difficult to organize an
educational campaign. But the logistical problem is not the main obstacle.
Maybe they are afraid they'll be perceived as betraying those who have been
arrested, as disassociating themselves from those who were killed or wounded.
Maybe they fear they'll be reminded with contempt that they enjoyed
governmental privileges and now enjoy the crumbs of what remains of those
privileges. Maybe they believe that by blurring the message they'll prevent
their rivals in the Hamas from gaining political strength. Maybe they fear for
their personal safety. And presumably, there are still some who believe that
harming Israeli civilians ultimately weakens Israel socially and economically. 

To the ranks of those who have failed must be added the activists from the
civil society, those Palestinian non-government organizations that operate in
the fields of civil rights, health, welfare and education. They are in constant
contact with widening circles of European and American activists who come to
the territories and go back to their home countries with harsh and accurate
reports about the Israeli occupation - the abuse by the soldiers, the soldiers
who have killed women and children, the horrifying poverty created by the
closures, the hundreds of houses that have been demolished, the olive trees
uprooted. Those international activists emphasize that they support nonviolent
civil disobedience. Their connection with Palestinian activists is based on
believe in universal, trans-nationalist values, the solidarity of the
oppressed. 

But those same Palestinian social and civil activists, including academics and
others identified with the Palestinian intellectual elite, don't dare go to
their publics and start an educational campaign against the rite of death and
killing. Many of them say in private conversations that not only must the
attacks be condemned on pragmatic grounds, since because of the attacks the
shocked international community forgets the Israeli occupation and its horrors,
but on moral grounds, the universal grounds of humanity. 

Quite a few of them can be heard saying we must not deteriorate to the moral
level of the Israeli occupiers, but they don't dare to do so openly and
systematically, except for the rare signature on this or that petition. Maybe
some of them are afraid they will be accused of being alienated intellectuals,
for whom it's easy to preach between overseas trips, because they don't
suffer like the ordinary people. Perhaps they are afraid that in an ever more
Muslim 

[pjnews] Mandela Blasts Bush On Iraq

[parallax]

Mandela Blasts Bush On Iraq
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Jan. 30, 2003

(CBS) Former President Nelson Mandela called President Bush arrogant and
shortsighted and implied that he was racist for ignoring the United Nations in
his zeal to attack Iraq.

In a speech Thursday, Mandela urged the people of the United States to join
massive protests against Mr. Bush. Mandela called on world leaders, especially
those with vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, to oppose him.

One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is
now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust, Mandela told the
International Women's Forum.

Mandela also criticized Iraq for not cooperating fully with the weapons
inspectors and said South Africa would support any action against Iraq that was
supported by the United Nations.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to Mandela's criticism by
pointing to a letter by eight European leaders reiterating their support of Mr.
Bush.

The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe who
obviously feel differently than Mandela, Fleischer said. He understands there
are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing
menace that could turn into a holocaust.

A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mandela has repeatedly condemned U.S. behavior
toward Iraq in recent months and demanded Mr. Bush respect the authority of the
United Nations. His comments Thursday, though, were far more critical and his
attack on Mr. Bush far more personal than in the past.

Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly? he asked. All that (Mr.
Bush) wants is Iraqi oil, he said.

He accused Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the
United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man?
They never did that when secretary-generals were white, he said.

Mandela said the United Nations was the main reason there has been no World War
III and it should make the decisions on how to deal with Iraq.

He said that the United States, which callously dropped atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has no moral authority to police the world.

If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world,
it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings, he said.

Who are they now to pretend that they are the policemen of the world, the ones
that should decide for the people of Iraq what should be done with their
government and their leadership? he said.

He said Mr. Bush was trying to bring about carnage and appealed to the
American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate against his policies.

He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States.

He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime
minister of Britain, he said. That echoes a theme adopted by war opponents in
Britain. Blair is to meet Mr. Bush for talks on Friday.

Mr. Bush hosted Mandela at the White House in November 2001, where Mandela
expressed his sympathy for the Sept. 11 attacks and said he supported
operations in Afghanistan.

Last July, the president awarded Mandela the Presidential Medal of Freedom --
the nation's highest civilian honor -- dubbing him perhaps the most revered
statesman of our time.

[pjnews] Rice Campaign for Iraq

[parallax]

There is a grassroots campaign underway to protest war in Iraq in simple, but
potentially powerful way. 

Place 1/2 cup uncooked rice in a small plastic bag (a snack-size bag or
sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air and seal the bag. Wrap it in a
piece of paper on which you have written  quote; If your enemies are hungry,
feed them. Romans 12:20. Please send this rice to the people of Iraq; do not
attack them. 

Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter-sized or padded
mailing envelope--both are the same cost to mail) and address them to:

President George Bush 
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 
Washington, DC 20500
Attach $1.06 in postage. (Three 37-cent stamps equal $1.11.)

Drop this in the mail TODAY. It is important to act NOW so that President Bush
gets the letters ASAP. In order for this protest to be effective, there must be
hundreds of thousands of such rice deliveries to the White House. We can do
this if you each forward this message to your friends and family. 

There is a positive history of this protest! In the 1950s, Fellowship of
Reconciliation began a similar protest, which is credited with influencing
President Eisenhower against attacking China. In the mid-1950s, the pacifist
Fellowship of Reconciliation, learning of famine in the Chinese mainland,
launched a 'Feed Thine Enemy' campaign. Members and friends mailed thousands of
little bags of rice to the WhiteHouse with a tag quoting the Bible,If thine
enemy hunger, feed him. 

As far as anyone knew for more than ten years, the campaign was an abject
failure. The President did not acknowledge receipt of the bags publicly;
certainly, no rice was ever sent to China. 

What nonviolent activists only learned a decade later was that the campaign
played a significant, perhaps even determining role in preventing nuclear 

President Eisenhower met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to consider U.S.
options in the conflict with Chinaover two islands, Quemoy and Matsu. The
generals twice recommended the use of nuclear weapons. President Eisenhower
each time turned to his aide and asked how many little bags of rice had come
in. When told they numbered in the tens of thousands, Eisenhower told the
generals that as long as so many Americans were expressing active interest in
having the U.S. feed the Chinese, he certainly wasn't going to consider using
nuclear weapons against them. 

from: People Power: Applying Nonviolence 
Theory by David H. Albert, 
; p.43, New Society, 19.

[pjnews] Veterans Call to Conscience

[parallax]

Call to Conscience From Veterans to Active Duty Troops and Reservists 
http://www.calltoconscience.net

We are veterans of the United States armed forces. We stand with the majority
of humanity, including millions in our own country, in opposition to the United
States all out war on Iraq. We span many wars and eras, have many political
views and we all agree that this war is wrong. Many of us believed serving in
the military was our duty, and our job was to defend this country. Our
experiences in the military caused us to question much of what we were taught.
Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed
forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the
consequences of your actions will be for humanity. We call upon you, the active
duty and reservists, to follow your conscience and do the right thing. 

In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe
distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of
thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra ­ the Highway of
Death - where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches,
burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields
radioactive. Massive use of pesticides, experimental drugs, burning chemical
weapons depots and oil fires combined to create a toxic cocktail affecting both
the Iraqi people and Gulf War veterans today. One in four Gulf War veterans is
disabled. 

During the Vietnam War we were ordered to destroy Vietnam from the air and on
the ground. At My Lai we massacred over 500 women, children and old men. This
was not an berration, it’s how we fought the war. We used Agent Orange on the
enemy and then experienced first hand its effects. We know what Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder looks, feels and tastes like because the ghosts of over two
million men, women and children still haunt our dreams. More of us took our own
lives after returning home than died in battle. 

If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an
occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people
that hate you to your core? You should think about what your mission really
is. You are being sent to invade and occupy a people who, like you and me, are
only trying to live their lives and raise their kids. They pose no threat to
the United States even though they have a brutal dictator as their leader. Who
is the U.S. to tell the Iraqi people how to run their country when many in the
U.S. don’t even believe their own President was legally elected? 

Saddam is being vilified for gassing his own people and trying to develop
weapons of mass destruction. However, when Saddam committed his worst crimes
the U.S. was supporting him. This support included providing the means to
produce chemical and biological weapons. Contrast this with the horrendous
results of the U.S. led economic sanctions. More than a million Iraqis, mainly
children and infants, have died because of these sanctions. After having
destroyed the entire infrastructure of their country including hospitals,
electricity generators, and water treatment plants, the U.S. then, with the
sanctions, stopped the import of goods, medicines, parts, and chemicals
necessary to restore even the most basic necessities of life. 

There is no honor in murder. This war is murder by another name. When, in an
unjust war, an errant bomb dropped kills a mother and her child it is not
collateral damage, it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a child dies of
dysentery because a bomb damaged a sewage treatment plant, it is not
destroying enemy infrastructure, it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a
father dies of a heart attack because a bomb disrupted the phone lines so he
could not call an ambulance, it is not neutralizing command and control
facilities, it is murder. When, in an unjust war, a thousand poor farmer
conscripts die in a trench defending a town they have lived in their whole
lives, it is not victory, it is murder. 

There will be veterans leading protests against this war on Iraq and your
participation in it. During the Vietnam War thousands in Vietnam and in the
U.S. refused to follow orders. Many resisted and rebelled. Many became
conscientious objectors and others went to prison rather than bear arms against
the so-called enemy. During the last Gulf War many GIs resisted in various ways
and for many different reasons. Many of us came out of these wars and joined
with the anti-war movement. 

If the people of the world are ever to be free, there must come a time when
being a citizen of the world takes precedence over being the soldier of a
nation. Now is that time. When orders come to ship out, your response will
profoundly impact the lives of millions of people in the Middle East and here
at home. Your response will help set the course of our future. You will have
choices all along the way. Your commanders want you to obey. 

[pjnews] Military Petition: Refuse to Fight; Refuse to Kill

[parallax]

forward...

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

Thanks to all of you who have signed the statement: Refuse to Fight;
Refuse to Kill. Thanks to all of you who have considered signing but for
reasons of your own have decided not to. Bear with us, as we try to continue
this process and project. 

Below is the list of people who have signed to date. You are in good
company.

Some of the signers are already distributing the statement at local
bases. We encourage any of you who can to do likewise. Dorothy Day and Jonah
House will be meeting early in the week to discuss ways to publicize the
statement: press conference, internet distribution, a newspaper ad, for
example. We are open to more ideas. 

Below is the statement as it stands and the list of signers. Please let us
know any further thoughts you might have...


Brothers and Sisters in the Military: Refuse to Fight!  Refuse to Kill!

You are being ordered to war by a President who was never elected, who has
never fought in a war, and who is saying that it is acceptable to use
nuclear weapons.

You are being ordered to war in the footsteps of veterans, who, more than 10
years ago, were sent to fight the first Gulf War. Many of those vets
returned with severe and unacknowledged illnesses. Many gave birth to
severely deformed children. Many were abandoned by the Veterans
Administration.

You are being ordered to war by the most powerful nation on earth. 

You are being ordered to war by a nation with the most destructive weapons
ever conceived, developed, deployed or used. 

You are being ordered to war by a nation whose self-acknowledged posture is
that of world domination, mastery, control. 

This nation can have no moral justification for war.


We, the undersigned, are convinced that war is the greatest evil on earth.

We believe that humankind must end war, or war will end humankind, and, in
fact, all of creation.

Our convictions have driven us time and again to the Pentagon, White House
and Congress in acts of civil resistance to war.

Now, we bring our plea to you, sisters and brothers, in the armed forces.
Refuse to kill.
Refuse the order to go to war.
Leave the military before it is too late.

We know your resistance to war will be difficult and require great courage.
There are groups established for the express purpose of counseling and
supporting military resisters. To find out about your right to
conscientiously object to war call: GI Rights Hotline, 1-800-394-9544 (or
1-800 fyi 95gi)

As you consider this plea, we ask that you reflect:
Is non-cooperation more difficult than fighting in war?
Is non-cooperation more difficult than being a pawn of corporate greed? 
Is non-cooperation more difficult than living with a violated 
conscience? 
Is non-cooperation more difficult than living with the poisons of war in
your body and spirit?

Wrong is easy.  Right is difficult and long.  Do what your heart says is
right.

We knowingly and willingly make this plea to you in violation of 18 USC Sec.
1381 and 2387 (see below).   

We knowingly and willingly embrace some of your risk by urging you to refuse
duty in the U.S. military. We plead with you, as Bishop Oscar Romero pleaded
with Salvadoran troops: When you hear the words of a man telling you to
kill, remember instead the words of God: 'Thou shalt not kill!' No soldier
is obliged to obey an order contrary to the law of God...In the name of God,
in the name of our tormented people who have suffered so much and whose
laments cry out to heaven, I beseech you, I beg you, I order you in the name
of God, stop the repression!'

If you choose to leave the military, please know that our hearts and homes
are open to you.

Contact:
Jonah House (410-233-6238 or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
or Dorothy Day Catholic Worker (202-882-9649)

(text of footnote which is the text of the codes violated by signers)

18 USC (United States Code) Section 1381. Enticing desertion and
harboring deserters, Whoever entices or procures, or attempts or endeavors
to entice or procure any person in the Armed Forces of the United States, or
who has been recruited for service therein, to desert therefrom, or aids any
such person in deserting or in attempting to desert from such service; or
Whoever harbors, conceals, protects, or assists any such person who may have
deserted from such service, knowing him to have deserted therefrom, or
refuses to give up and deliver such person on the demand of any officer
authorized to receive him - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.

Section 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally 
  (a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the
loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United
States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to
cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member
of the 

[pjnews] Powell Without Picasso

[parallax]

February 5, 2003
Powell Without Picasso
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON
New York Times

When Colin Powell goes to the United Nations today to make his case for war 
with Saddam, the U.N. plans to throw a blue cover over Picasso's antiwar 
masterpiece, Guernica. 

Too much of a mixed message, diplomats say. As final preparations for the 
secretary's presentation were being made last night, a U.N. spokesman 
explained, Tomorrow it will be covered and we will put the Security Council 
flags in front of it. 

Mr. Powell can't very well seduce the world into bombing Iraq surrounded on 
camera by shrieking and mutilated women, men, children, bulls and horses.

Reporters and cameras will stake out the secretary of state at the entrance 
of the U.N. Security Council, where the tapestry reproduction of Guernica, 
contributed by Nelson Rockefeller, hangs.

The U.N. began covering the tapestry last week after getting nervous that 
Hans Blix's head would end up on TV next to a screaming horse head.

(Maybe the U.N. was inspired by John Ashcroft's throwing a blue cover over 
the Spirit of Justice statue last year, after her naked marble breast 
hovered over his head during a televised terrorism briefing.)

Nelson Rockefeller himself started the tradition of covering up art donated 
by Nelson Rockefeller when he sandblasted Diego Rivera's mural in the RCA 
Building in 1933 because it included a portrait of Lenin. (Rivera later took 
his revenge, reproducing the mural for display in Mexico City, but adding to 
it a portrait of John D. Rockefeller Jr. drinking a martini with a group of 
painted ladies.)

There has been too much sandblasting in Washington lately.

After leading the charge for months that there were ties between Iraq and Al 
Qaeda, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chastised the media yesterday for 
expecting dramatic, explicit evidence from Mr. Powell. The fixation on a 
smoking gun is fascinating to me, he said impatiently, adding: You all . . 
. have been watching `L.A. Law' or something too much.

The administration's argument for war has shifted in a dizzying Cubist 
cascade over the last months. Last summer, Bush officials warned that Saddam 
was close to building nuclear bombs. Now, with intelligence on aluminum 
tubes, once deemed proof of an Iraqi nuclear program, in dispute, the 
administration's emphasis has tacked back to germ and chemical weapons. With 
no proof that Saddam has given weapons to terrorists, another once-crucial 
part of the case for going to war, Mr. Rumsfeld and others now frame their 
casus belli prospectively: that we must get rid of Saddam because he will 
soon become the gulf's leading weapons supplier to terrorists.

Secretary Powell was huddling on the evidence in New York yesterday with the 
C.I.A. director, George Tenet. Mr. Tenet was there to make sure nothing too 
sensitive was revealed at the U.N., but mainly to lend credibility to Mr. 
Powell's brief, since there have been many reports that the intelligence 
agency has been skeptical about some of the Pentagon and White House claims 
on Iraq. It was Mr. Tenet who warned Congress in a letter last fall that 
there was only one circumstance in which the U.S. need worry about Iraq 
sharing weapons with terrorists: if Washington attacked Saddam.

When Mr. Bush wanted to sway opinion on Iraq before his State of the Union 
speech last week, he invited columnists to the White House. But he invited 
only conservative columnists, who went from gushing about the president to 
gushing more about the president.

The columnists did not use Mr. Bush's name, writing about him as a senior 
administration official, even though the White House had announced the 
meeting in advance.

They quoted the official about the president's determination on war. That's 
just silly. 

Calling in only like-minded journalists is like campaigning for a war only in 
the red states that Mr. Bush won in 2000, and not the blue states won by Al 
Gore.

When France and Germany acted skeptical, Mr. Rumsfeld simply booted them out 
of modern Europe, creating a pro-Bush red part of the European map (led by 
Poland, Italy and Britain) and the left-behind blue of old Europe.

When the evidence is not black and white, the president must persuade 
everyone. There is no red and blue. There is just red, white and blue.

---

TALKING POINTS 
by Phyllis Bennis (of the Institure for Policy Studies)
4 February 2003 -- on the eve of Powell's presentation

In a briefing for UN journalists this afternoon, Hans Blix denied or discounted
four major claims made by various Bush administration officials. Some of these
claims, particularly the one regarding the mobile biological laboratories, are
likely to be central to Colin Powell's presentation at the Security Council
tomorrow. 

The four discounted claims include: 

1) Mobile biological laboratories: Blix said his inspectors had reports about
the claim, but no evidence. We have never found one, he said. 

2) 

[pjnews] Powell's UN speech dissected

[parallax]

Please read this important analysis

Focus on Iraq: Powell's UN speech dissected
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 5 February 2003

US media had suggested that Secretary of State Colin Powell was playing down
what he would present to the UN Security Council about Iraq's alleged
deceptions, weapons of mass destruction, and support for terrorism, so that
when he made his revelations, they would have all the greater impact. Having
heard Powell's presentation, it is now clear he was playing things down because
his hand was in fact so weak. 

Powell's multi-media presentation was a rag-bag of old allegations, which the
United States has been making for years, some of them based on information Iraq
has itself provided to UN inspectors. Other claims were based on audio
recordings and satellite images, and still more were based on unverifiable
claims from unidentified human witnesses and defectors. Powell all but
admitted the weakness of his case by continually saying these are facts, not
assertions, at moments when he was providing the most sensational yet least
supported claims. He also resorted to the comic book tactic of calling Saddam
Hussein an evil genius for having succeeded in hiding what the US says is a
vast arsenal, not only from UN inspectors, but from the world's only super
power. Let's look more closely at some of the new elements in the American
case for an immediate attack on Iraq: 

The Audio Tapes 

Powell played what he said were intercepted conversations between Iraqi
officers who were discussing ways to conceal prohibited materials from UN
inspectors. None of the three recordings, if real, amounted to a smoking gun.
If they were real, they could be incriminating in a certain context, but they
could also have been taken out of a context in which they were entirely
innocent. 

The evidentiary value of the alleged recordings is close to nil. The recordings
could easily have been faked, as the United States has a history of doing. In
2001, US public radio's This American Life, broadcast recently declassified
tapes from a clandestine radio station set up by the CIA in the 1950s to help
provoke a coup against the democratically-elected government of Guatemala. The
radio station, which broadcast completely fake opposition voices, is credited
with helping bring a repressive American client regime to power. (Program
broadcast on 30 November 2001. See www.thislife.org for details.) 

More directly related to current events, New York's Village Voice newspaper
reported late last year how, during the 1990s, a Harvard graduate student
celebrated for his convincing impersonation of Saddam Hussein was hired by the
high-powered, US government-linked public relations firm, the Rendon Group, to
make fake propaganda broadcasts of Saddam's voice to Iraq. The student received
three thousand dollars a month for his troubles. I never got a straight answer
on whether the Iraqi resistance, the CIA, or policy makers on the Hill were
actually the ones calling the shots, the report quotes the ersatz Saddam
saying, but ultimately I realized that the guys doing spin (sic) were very
well funded and completely cut loose. (Broadcast Ruse: A Grad Student
Mimicked Saddam Over the Airwaves, The Village Voice, 13-19 November 2002) 

In 1990, another Washington public relations firm, hired by Kuwait, helped win
support for the first Gulf War by fabricating claims, presented to Congress,
that Iraqi troops threw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. (see The Lies We Are
Told About Iraq, The Los Angeles Times, 5 January 2003) 

Those taken in by that deception, will want to be more skeptical this time
around. It also doesn't help US credibility that the Pentagon has repeatedly
over the past two years stated that it would use deception and black propaganda
to achieve its policy goals. 

Satellite Imagery 

Powell relied on satellite images in order to support the claim that Iraq is
still producing and hiding chemical weapons. He said, for instance, that some
of the images he showed were of the Iraqis sanitizing the Al-Taji chemical
munitions storage site before UN inspectors arrived 

Again, it is impossible to tell if the satellite photos displayed by Powell are
real, fake, old or new. But even if they are real, current photos of Iraq, they
are by themselves of no conclusive value. The New York Times reported that
American officials recently gave the UN inspectors satellite photos of what
American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected
chemical weapons site. But when the inspectors went to the site, they
concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by
Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in
weapons activities. (Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War, The New York
Times, 31 January 2003) 

For all we know the incident referred to in The New York Times is probably the
same used goods Powell tried to sell to the Security Council. Only the

[pjnews] Urgent Appeal for Colombian Refugees in Costa Rica

[parallax]

Dear Friends and Listeners,

We are writing to you with some urgency due to the desperate predicament
of a group of around 1,000 Colombian refugees here in Costa Rica,
forced to flee their country because of the terrible war that Colombia
is experiencing. Unfortunately, the problems many were running from have
followed them.

On 31st December we celebrated the New Year on the street outside the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San Jose in solidarity with
Colombian refugees who are so afraid for their lives that they have been
forced to camp on the international ground outside the court for their
own protection. Many have been pursued through three or four countries
before coming to Costa Rica by Colombian paramilitaries, guerilla groups
and agents of the Colombian army. They hoped that they would finally find
some protection here because of Costa Rica's reputation and comparatively
good human rights record. However, they have experienced more of the same.

In addition to the persecution they have suffered from these groups
operating illegally within Costa Rica, they have suffered discrimination
from Costa Rican institutions and authorities, even those who have been
accepted as refugees have been denied the right to health care, housing
and recognition of their professional qualifications. We spoke to a 67
year old grandmother who has been here for years and has never been given
the right to health care. We spoke to women who say that when they apply
for jobs or go to appointments to get their qualifications recognized
so that the can work, they have been told You are Colombian, there is
nothing for you here. Why don't you just go into prostitution? We spoke
to a man who is a qualified accountant and told us I am tired of sending
out resumes and application forms. I have been to every institution in
the land trying to get my qualifications recognized. I have no hope of
gaining decent employment. He now makes bracelets and sells them on
the street to survive.

Costa Rica has signed up to many different conventions and international
agreements regarding the treatment and human rights of refugees in
their country. The Association for the Defence of the Human Rights of
Colombian Refugees (Asociacion para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos
del Colombiano Refugiado) composed of the people demonstrating for these
past two months outside the court, accuses the Costa Rican government
of failing to recognize the rights that are afforded them by the Geneva
Protocol, the Cartagena Protocol and the El Salvador Protocol. They
accuse the UN High Commission for Refugees (based here in San Jose)
of failing to ensure that they are protected and for failing to ensure
that their rights as refugees in Costa Rica are upheld in terms of the
right to work, the right to a home and access to health care. They accuse
them of failing to distribute the funds allocated to refugees in Costa
Rica. This is a UN body which is allocated funds specifically to ensure
the well being of refugees!

We have returned to speak with, monitor, support and report on the
situation of this group of Colombian refugees on different occasions
since New Year and we have been saddened to see that the situation of
our friends, their families and their children has not improved.

Following a fire bomb attack on them outside the court this past week,
they felt they had to take some drastic action to draw attention to their
plight and to ask that the Costa Rican government protect them or to at
least send them to another country where they will receive protection.

They notified us that they planned to peacefully enter and occupy
the Inter American Court of Human Rights on Monday 3rd February. At
5pm we witnessed them entering the court and observed the arrival of
the Costa Rican police within a few moments. The scene was emotional,
as there were children present, their parents holding them before the
police and pleading with them in tears to protect them and explaining to
them why they had felt forced to take this action. The police informed
them that they were disrespecting Costa Rican law and that if they
failed to leave the premises within five minutes, they would all
betaken to the Immigration authority and those without papers would be
deported. They also threatened to remove them by force if they failed
to move voluntarily.

The Colombian refugees agreed reluctantly that they would leave the
area peacefully and disperse on the condition that there would be no
arrests. They were tearful and disappointed that their plan had failed in
what they had hoped to achieve and that so many of their group had been
too afraid to turn up and join the protest. There were Colombians hanging
around nearby but too afraid to join in. We felt that our presence may
well have been critical in the way that the police eventually decided
to handle the situation as it turned out, without force. But we wonder
what may become of our friends when we are not able to be there.

[pjnews] Dazzled by the Pinstripes: Powell at the United Nations

[parallax]

Dazzled by the Pinstripes: Powell at the United Nations
By Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung
February 10, 2003

There was no Adlai Stevenson confrontation. There was no smoking gun
revelation. Secretary of State Colin Powell's performance before the
United Nations was more of a pinstripe performance. In the movie
Catch Me if You Can, grifter Frank Abagnale asks, why do the Yankees
always win? Its not because they have Mickey Mantle like everyone
thinks, but because people can't take their eyes off the pinstripes. 

Powell's presentation, complete with satellite images, enlarged
photographs and audiotapes, and delivered with his trademark
self-assurance, was a perfect pinstripe performance. He looked and
sounded so confident and credible that questioning or contradicting him
was almost not an option. 

And it would be hard to refute much of what he presented. Most of it is
not new- like the assertion that Saddam Hussein is a dictatorial human
rights abuser who used chemical weapons in the 1980s.  Some of it sounds
credible -- like the notion that Saddam Hussein would try to elude
inspectors. Other elements of Powell's brief were less persuasive, like
his efforts to prove a definitive link between Saddam Hussein and
Al-Qaeda or his claims about mobile Iraqi bioweapons laboratories

Despite the substantive limitations of Powell's case, he clearly won
wide acclaim due to the forcefulness with which he made his case. Scores
of editorialists, columnists, and TV commentators have embraced Powell's
statement as the last word on why the United States must go to war with
Iraq.  Even Mary McGrory, the veteran liberal columnist at the
Washington Post, was moved to write a column entitled I'm Persuaded.  
   

But try not to get distracted by the pinstripes. The central questions,
despite what Powell presented, are the same as they has always been.  Is
Iraq an imminent threat to the United States or its allies?  And will
military action against him eliminate or inflame that threat?

To answer this question one need look no further than the Central
Intelligence Agency, which says that Saddam Hussein is not a threat, and
will not become one unless he is attacked. In an October 7th letter to
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) CIA director George Tenet wrote, Baghdad for
now appears to be drawing the line short of conducting terrorist attacks
with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the
United States. Tenet continues with the big but… Should Saddam
conclude that a U.S. led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably
would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. A
threatened and cornered Saddam Hussein could even take the extreme step
of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) attack against the United States. But only if he is
attacked. 

A well-documented new report by the Fourth Freedom Forum concludes that
despite Secretary of State Powell's histrionics, independently
verifiable evidence is lacking on the most essential security concerns -
Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, and its
[alleged] operational links to Al Qaeda.  The report notes that
Powell's allegations regarding mobile biological weapons labs were based
entirely on the testimony of prisoners and defectors, while UN weapons
inspectors and experts on biological weapons continue to question the
existence and even the practicality of such mobile facilities.  As
former CIA official Vincent Cannistraro has noted, Iraqi defectors are
notoriously unreliable, and their main motivation is telling the
Defense Department what they want to hear. 
  
If Iraq is hiding chemical and biological weapons; Saddam Hussein may
be hiding his country's relative weakness, not its growing military
strength.  According to a 1999 UN experts panel report, the inspections
of the 1990s eliminated the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons
programs. Former chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq Rolf Ekeus has
suggested that the task for current inspectors involves tracking down
the pathetic remnants of what Iraq had in 1998.  Continued inspections
and monitoring will be more than adequate to contain Saddam Hussein's
regime and eliminate his ability to use chemical or biological weapons
against his own people or other nations.  And inspections won't cost
$100 to $200 billion or result in thousands of casualties, as a war is
likely to do.

The Bush administration should help the inspectors finish their work,
not pull the rug out from under them by launching an ill-advised
military intervention.  War should be the tool of last resort.  That
used to be Colin Powell's position.  He had it right the first time
around.

Links:
Contested Case: Do the Facts Justify the Case for War in Iraq? Fourth
Freedom Forum, February 2003.
http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-si-index.php?hinc=dossier_report.hinc


Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate at the Arms Trade
Resource Center of the World 

[pjnews] Media's Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage

[parallax]

Fairness  Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

MEDIA ADVISORY:
A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage
Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny

February 10, 2003

In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation
to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated
allegations made by Powell as though they were facts.  Reporters at
several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of
prefacing unverified assertions with words like claimed or alleged.

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months,
many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities
have failed to hold up to inspection.  In many cases, the failed claims--
like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British
intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.

---

In its report on Powell's presentation, the New York Daily News (2/6/03)
accepted his evidence at face value: To buttress his arguments, Powell
showed satellite photos of Iraqi weapons sites and played several
audiotapes intercepted by U.S. electronic eavesdroppers.  The most
dramatic featured an Iraqi Army colonel in the 2nd Republican Guards Corps
ordering a captain to sanitize communications.  The Daily News gave no
indication that it had independent confirmation that the photos were
indeed of weapons sites, or that individuals on the tapes were in fact who
Powell said they were.

In Andrea Mitchell's report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell's
allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: Powell
played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and
a model of Iraq's unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ
weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles.

Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03),
shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts:
Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens
of thousands of liters of anthrax.  He showed how Iraqi jets could spray
that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new
weapons.  The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by
Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell showed to
be actually operating.

Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the
possibility that Powell could be doubted: No one disputes the findings
Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to
disarm.  When CNN's Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former
State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq's
response to Powell's speech thusly: You've got to understand that most
Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick
to their stomach. Which was it for you?

--

Journalists should always be wary of implying unquestioning faith in
official assertions; recent history is full of official claims based on
satellite and other intelligence data that later turned out to be false or
dubious.  After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration
rallied support for sending troops to Saudi Arabia by asserting that
classified satellite photos showed the Iraqi army mobilizing on the Saudi
border.  This claim was later discredited when the St. Petersburg Times
obtained commercial satellite photos showing no such build-up (Second
Front, John R. MacArthur).  The Clinton administration justified a cruise
missile attack on the Sudan by saying that intelligence showed that the
target was a chemical weapons factory; later investigation showed it to be
a pharmaceutical factory (London Independent, 5/4/99).

In the present instance, journalists have a responsibility to put U.S.
intelligence claims in context by pointing out that a number of
allegations recently made by the current administration have already been
debunked.  Among them:

* Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos
showed Iraq was reconstituting its clandestine nuclear weapons program
at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a
Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): Satellite
photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
been part of his nuclear program in the past.

When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha
site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim.  Since December 4
inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and
reported no violations, according to an Associated Press report
(1/18/03).

* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence
existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic
missiles at several sites.  In one such report the CIA said the only
plausible explanation for a 

[pjnews] Saturday anti-war rallies

[parallax]

excerpted from adc.org

This coming Saturday, February 15, is an international day of peaceful protest
to oppose a war with Iraq. Hundreds of thousands or potentially millions will
be gathering for events that will be held in 528 cities across the globe to say
NO to war. This could be the largest outpouring of anti-war sentiment in
history. 

Here in the United States, a massive rally will be held in New York City at
49th Street and 1st Avenue at 12 noon.  The rally is organized by the United 
for Peace and Justice campaign, which has
over 200 peace and justice groups as part of its network. All are united in the
effort to prevent another war with Iraq, another disaster for the
long-suffering Iraqi people. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
(ADC) is part of this coalition and members from across the nation will be
saying no to war with Iraq. ADC strongly encourages its members, chapters, and
supporters to take part in the New York City rally, the San Francisco rally, or
any rally in their area. 

For the most up-to-date information or to learn more about what is being
planned in your area, see http://www.unitedforpeace.org.

The New York demonstration will also be broadcast worldwide on Pacifica radio 
stations, satellite television and shortwave radio (Radio for Peace 
International).  For more info or to find out how to get your community radio 
station or public access television channel to carry the coverage, see: 
http://www.democracynow.org/FEB15.htm

--

British anti-war demonstrations
Tuesday February 11 2003
The Guardian

[pjnews] Dems Charge CIA Sabotaged Weapons Inspections

[parallax]

The Independent [UK]
Democrats charge CIA sabotaged inspections and hid Iraq weapons details

February 14, 2003
By Andrew Buncombe

Senior democrats have accused the CIA of sabotaging weapons inspections in
Iraq by refusing to co-operate fully with the UN and withholding crucial
information about Saddam Hussein's arsenal.
Led by Senator Carl Levin, the Democrats accused the CIA of making an
assessment that the inspections were unlikely to be a success and then
ensuring they would not be. They have accused the CIA director of lying
about what information on the suspected location of weapons of mass
destruction had been passed on.

The row is of heightened significance given the Bush administration's
preparations to argue later today before the UN Security Council that the
inspections have run their course and it is now time to move to military
action.

France, Russia, Germany and other members of the Security Council are likely
to back a counter-proposal to increase the number of inspectors, providing
them, if necessary, with the support of armed UN soldiers, as a means of
avoiding a military strike.

The accusation of US sabotage emerged from a series of Senate hearings on
Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, George Tenet, the CIA director, told the armed
services committee panel that the agency had provided the UN inspectors with
all the information it had on high and moderate interest locations
inside Iraq ­ those sites where there was a possibility of finding banned
weapons. But Mr Tenet later told a different panel that he had been mistaken
and that there were in fact a handful of locations the UN inspectors may
not have known about.

Senator Levin, from Michigan, responded by saying the CIA director had not
been telling the truth. Citing a number of classified letters he had
obtained from the agency, he said it was clear the CIA had not shared
information with the inspectors about a large number of sites of
significant value.

He said the CIA had told him additional information would be passed to the
inspectors within the next few days.

Mr Levin pushed Mr Tenet on whether he thought the inspections had any
value. The CIA director replied: Unless [President Saddam] provides the
data to build on, provides the access, provides the unfettered access that
he's supposed to, provides us with surveillance capability, there is little
chance you're going to find weapons of mass destruction under the rubric
he's created inside the country ... The inspectors have been put in a very
difficult position by his behaviour.

Mr Levin said later he believed the CIA had, in effect, taken the decision
to undermine the inspections. When they've taken the position that
inspections are useless, they are bound to fail, he told The Washington
Post. We have undermined the inspectors.

Mr Levin has raised his concerns with the White House. In a letter to
President Bush, the senator asked that America provide the inspectors with
as much information as available.

He wrote: The American people want the inspections to proceed, want the
United States to share the information we have with the UN inspectors and
want us to obtain United Nations support before military action is used
against Iraq. 

© 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=378163

[pjnews] bin Laden Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein

[parallax]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15176

TruthOut.com

Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein
By William Rivers Pitt,

February 12, 2003

Osama bin Laden rose from the dead yet again on Tuesday to prophesy doom and
death for America. This is nothing new; he has been clawing his way out of
various burial holes for seventeen months now, and always manages to strike
fear into the American heart by way of the American media and the Bush
administration at exactly the moment when incredibly important shifts in
history are in the offing.

At this moment, George W. Bush stands almost completely alone in his desire
to make pre-emptive war on the nation of Iraq. Several key NATO allies ­
France, Germany and Belgium among them ­ have thrown sand into the gears of
battle by refusing to prepare Turkey for an immediate war they do not
support nor deem necessary. As this incredible state of affairs unfolded,
Americans found their ears ringing with orange-hued warnings of imminent
death. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge went so far as to tell people to
load up on plastic sheeting and duct tape so as to bar their windows from
chemical attack, but the administration he calls home made sure to tell
people to live their lives normally and continue shopping.

And so it goes. This is fairly standard stuff within the American echo
chamber. Let there be one important piece of legislation, or one highly
embarrassing turn of events for the administration, and the word goes forth
that the sky is falling. We have been dealing with this politically
manufactured low-grade hysteria for many months now. Most Americans have
reached a suspended state of disbelief about it all, and won't be taking
these warnings seriously unless they see Osama bin Laden on their doorstep
in a black cassock with scythe in hand. Bush and Ashcroft will soon run out
of colors on the warning chart if this keeps up; the shade after red likely
exists somewhere in the fourth dimension, visible only to ultraconservative
war-hawks and media talking heads.

When the voice of Osama comes out of the television, however, things
suddenly become much more serious. The Bush administration may have
forgotten him entirely, but every single American still sleeps with visions
of burning towers and plummeting bodies projected on the backs of their
eyelids. Peter Bergen, noted terrorism expert, stated on CNN that such
messages from bin Laden usually herald new attacks. If the Orange Alert was
dubious on Monday, it was given new importance on Tuesday.

Secretary of State Colin Powell set the stage for this new bin Laden
statement early on Tuesday, much to the surprise of CIA Director George
Tenet. Powell, during testimony at a Senate Budget Committee meeting, let it
drop that the Middle East news network Al Jazeera had in hand a tape of
Osama bin Laden. Tenet, seated with the Intelligence Committee, had not
heard of this tape. One is left wondering at Powell's sources, especially
after the story unfolded.

Powell used the existence of this tape, and the words he claimed bin Laden
had said on it, to further tie Saddam Hussein to international terrorism. He
claimed bin Laden was clearly establishing a connection between himself and
Hussein on the tape, beyond all question. This nexus between terrorists and
states that are developing weapons of mass destruction, said Powell, can
no longer be looked away from and ignored.

The actual tape, played and translated live on every major cable news
channel, told a very different story. Osama bin Laden swore vengeance
against America if Iraq was attacked, and demanded that the Muslim world
stand in solidarity with the Muslim people of Iraq. In very clear words,
Osama bin Laden told the people of Iraq to rise up against both American
aggression and against socialist Saddam Hussein. If the translations that
were provided were reliable, there is no ambiguity in bin Laden's words on
the matter. So much, it seems, for Powell's case that Hussein and bin Laden
are working together.

And this is where it gets interesting.

An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence:
At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader. This clearly
confirms the clarity of mind Osama bin Laden displayed in regard to Saddam
Hussein, and conforms to the recorded message heard by millions and millions
of people around the world.

Less than twenty minutes after this report appeared on MSNBC, that sentence
was deleted from the report. A few intrepid Internet news junkies, including
myself, preserved what is called a 'screen-grab' of the original article
before it was scrubbed. The version of the article currently in existence
has replaced the text above with this far more benign text: The taped
statement reflected Saddam, a secular leader, but made it clear that Saddam
was not the immediate target. A similar story line, bereft of the portions
describing 

[pjnews] Weekend Anti-war Protests Worldwide

[parallax]

This weekend's protests:

Rome: 2.5 million
London: 1.5 million
Barcelona: 1 million
Madrid: 1 million 
New York City: 500,000
Berlin: 500,000 
Melbourne: 200,000 
Athens: 200,000
Montreal: 150,000
Dublin: 100,000+ 
Brussels: 100,000 
Paris: 100,000 
Jakarta: 100,000
... and 590 other cites around the globe!  For the full list, see 
http://www.unitedforpeace.org

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London called this the largest protest in 2000 
years of British history!  The mainstream media coverage I have seen has 
actually been quite good.  CNN ran a 3 minute montage of all the protests 
around the world and kept emphasizing that the activists are people from all 
walks of life.  See slide shows of protests across the country and around the 
world at http://www.nytimes.com/ and http://www.cnn.com

Scott


Published on Saturday, February 15, 2003 by the New York Times  
http://www.nytimes.com/

Sea fo Faces Extended for More Than Mile up First Avenue
From New York to Melbourne, Cries for Peace  

by Robert D. McFadden 
  
Confronting America's countdown to war, throngs of chanting, placard-waving 
demonstrators converged on New York and scores of cities across the United 
States, Europe and Asia today in a global daisy chain of largely peaceful 
protests against the Bush administration's threatened invasion of Iraq.

Three years after vast crowds turned out around the world to celebrate the new 
millennium, millions gathered again today in a darker mood of impending 
conflict, forming a patchwork of demonstrations that together, organizers said, 
made up the largest, most diverse peace protest since the Vietnam War.

On a freezing winter day in New York, a huge crowd, prohibited by a court order 
from marching, rallied within sight of the United Nations amid heavy security. 
They raised banners of patriotism and dissent, sounded the hymns of a broad new 
antiwar movement and heard speakers denounce what they called President Bush's 
rush to war, while offering no sympathy for Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein.

The World Says No to War, proclaimed a huge banner over a stage on First 
Avenue near 51st Street, the focal point of a vast crowd that filled the avenue 
between 49th and 72nd Streets and spilled over into the side streets and to 
Second, Third and Lexington Avenues, where thousands more were halted at police 
barricades, far from the sights and sounds of the demonstration.

Crowd estimates are often little more than politically tinged guesses, and the 
police did not provide one. Organizers said that more than 400,000 people 
attended and, given the sea of faces extending for more than a mile up First 
Avenue and the ancillary crowds that were prevented from joining them, the 
claim did not appear to be wildly improbable.

There were similar though smaller demonstrations in Philadelphia, Chicago, 
Seattle, San Diego, Sacramento, Miami and scores of other American cities, 
organized under the umbrella of United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 
120 organizations.

In London, 500,000 to 750,000 people rallied in Hyde Park, while 200,000 
gathered at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and hundreds of thousands more 
protested in Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Barcelona, Rome, Melbourne, Cape Town, 
Johannesburg, Auckland, Seoul, Tokyo and Manila. Many contended that America's 
interest in Iraq had more to do with oil than disarming a dangerous tyrant. 

Protests unfolded in more than 350 cities around the world — some drawing 
hundreds of thousands, others only a few hundred — and for the most part the 
dissents were peaceful. There were about two dozen arrests for disorderly 
conduct in New York, and the police in Athens fired tear gas and clashed with 
demonstrators who threw a gasoline bomb, but no injuries were reported.

The demonstrations were the culmination of a global campaign that has been 
building for weeks in opposition to the growing threat of war, with thousands 
marching, rallying, signing petitions, raising funds, publishing articles and 
using the Internet to enlist a diverse coalition of citizens and celebrities.

Unlike the stereotypical scruffy, pot-smoking, flag-burning anarchists of the 
Vietnam era, today's protests were joined by a wide segment of the political 
spectrum: college students, middle-aged couples, families, older people who had 
marched for civil rights, and groups representing labor, the environment and 
religious, business and civic organizations.

For most demonstrators, President Bush was the chief villain, a casualty of 
what some called an obsession with his father's Persian Gulf War in 1991 and 
its failure to oust Saddam Hussein. Other targets were Mr. Bush's secretary of 
defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and his secretary of state, Colin L. Powell.

I came to go to the rally and be a part of a global voice against going to war 
against Iraq again, said Mary Baxter, 31, employed by a software company in 
Cambridge, Mass., whose quiet solemnity seemed typical. I 

[pjnews] Kurds Decry US Occupation

[parallax]

Independent, UK
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060

Kurdish leaders enraged by 'undemocratic' American plan to occupy Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil, northern Iraq

17 February 2003

The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to
overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met
American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the
Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the
region. 

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but
largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the
replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military
officers. 

It undercuts the argument by George Bush and Tony Blair that war is
justified by the evil nature of the regime in Baghdad.

Conquerors always call themselves liberators, said Sami Abdul-Rahman,
deputy prime minister of the Kurdish administration, in a reference to Mr
Bush's speech last week in which he said US troops were going to liberate
Iraq. 

Mr Abdul-Rahman said the US had reneged on earlier promises to promote
democratic change in Iraq. It is very disappointing, he said. In every
Iraqi ministry they are just going to remove one or two officials and
replace them with American military officers.

Kurdish officials strongly believe the new US policy is the result of
pressure from regional powers, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The US appears to be quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would
make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East. In Iraq, free elections
would lead to revolutionary change because although the Shia Muslims and
Kurds constitute three-quarters of the population, they are excluded from
power in Baghdad by the Sunni Muslim establishment.

Kurdish leaders are deeply alarmed by US intentions, which only became clear
at a meeting in Ankara earlier in the month and from recent public
declarations by US officials. Hoshyar Zebari, a veteran Kurdish leader,
said: If the US wants to impose its own government, regardless of the
ethnic and religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash.

Mr Abdul-Rahman accuses the US of planning cosmetic changes in Iraq. This
is to give the government on a platter to the second line of Ba'athists [the
ruling party], he said.

The US appears to be returning to the policy it pursued at the end of the
Gulf War in 1991. It did seek to get rid of President Saddambut wanted to
avoid a radical change in Iraq. The US did not support the uprisings of Shia
Muslims and Kurdsbecause it feared a transformation in Iraqi politics that
might have destabilised its allies in the Middle East or benefited Iran.

The two Kurdish parties - the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which rules
western Kurdistan, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan - are at the heart
of the Iraqi opposition. Together they rule four million people in an area
the size of Switzerland that has been outside President Saddam's control
since 1991. 

The change in American policy means marginalising the Iraqi opposition which
has been seeking to unite. In response to the US decision, the Kurds and
their allies have accelerated moves to hold a conference of opposition
parties in Salahudin, the headquarters of the KDP, now scheduled for
tomorrow. We want to know if we are partners in regime change or not, Mr
Zebari said. 

He spoke scathingly of any attempt by America to bring in an Iraqi from the
United States who has not seen his country for years and impose him by armed
force. 

The destabilising impact of the impending war is already being felt in the
mountains of northern Iraq. Turkey has demanded that its troops be allowed
to take over a swath of territory along the border inside Iraq. The
ostensible reason is to prevent a flood of Kurdish refugees trying to flee
into Turkey, but the Kurdish parties say they are quite capable of doing
this themselves. They say the Turkish demand, to which they suspect the US
has agreed in return for the use of Turkish military facilities, is the
first step in a Turkish plan to advance into Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurds fear that a US-led war against President Saddam might be the
occasion for a Turkish effort to end the de facto independence enjoyed by
Iraqi Kurds for more than a decade. One Kurdish leader said: Turkey has
made up its mind that it will intervene in northern Iraq in order to destroy
us. 

__
Patrick Cockburn is a visiting fellow at the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington and the co-author of 'Saddam Hussein: An
American Obsession'.

[pjnews] Economic Consequences of War

[parallax]

Consequences of War with Iraq could be disastrous for fragile economy 

Predictions of economic effects range from a slowdown to a double-dip
recession, in light of uncertainties 

Estimates of Economic Costs

A comprehensive analysis by a group of experts convened by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) predicts that a war with Iraq could
send stock prices careening downward by as much as 25 percent. An economic
assessment completed last year by Yale economist William Nordhaus underscores
the tremendous uncertainties involved: he concludes that the costs of a war
could range from roughly $99 billion to as much as $1.9 trillion over the next
decade. Most economists agree that even if the war goes well, the economic
shock is likely to dwarf the impact of the administration's economic stimulus
plan. Many analysts fear it will tip the economy back into a prolonged
recession. 

War with Iraq involves numerous uncertainties that will affect costs, including
the duration and character of the conflict, the potential for unconventional
warfare, the scale of post-war reconstruction, the difficulty of occupation and
peacekeeping, the magnitude of humanitarian needs, and the reaction of world
oil markets. To deal with these uncertainties, analysts have produced a range
of possible costs based on scenarios intended to capture worst and best cases.
Using this methodology, the CSIS and Nordhaus studies -- the most comprehensive
and current estimates available -- paint a sobering picture of a threatened
economy and possible return to recession. 

Where are the Administration's cost estimates?

The Bush Administration has declined to provide detailed cost projections of US
intervention. The President's former top economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsey,
was chastised by the White House for telling the Wall Street Journal last
September that a war with Iraq could cost $100 to $200 billion. In late
December, the new White House budget chief Mitch Daniels countered that a war
could cost $50 to $60 billion, but he did not provide any data or explanation
to support this claim. The administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request,
which calls for $399 billion in military spending and a record deficit of $307
billion, does not include any funds to cover the costs of a war and subsequent
occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. Congress will be presented with the bill
after the fact, in a supplemental appropriation request. 

Since there has been little discussion of how to finance the war prior to the
outbreak of conflict, the US may be well prepared militarily, but not so
economically, observed Robert Hormats, a senior economic official for
Republican and Democratic Presidents. The Administration's failure to disclose
costs -- and Congress's failure to demand them -- represent a failure of
democracy. Leaders of great powers, argues Hormats, have an obligation to
discuss candidly with their people the costs of defending their freedoms and
to obtain their informed consent.

Study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies

The CSIS study, conducted by a panel of prestigious economists and foreign
policy experts chaired by former Federal Reserve Board Governor Lawrence Meyer,
analyzed three scenarios. 

+ In the best case scenario of a quick war without any major problems
lasting four to six weeks, the effect of war on the economy is limited. 

+ In the intermediate case of a war that lasts six to twelve weeks without
serious problems in the flow of energy or any major political catastrophes,
stock prices would continue to fall, interest rates would rise and economic
growth would slow by another 1 + percent. This in turn will push unemployment
up to about 6.3% by the end of 2003. 

+ In the worst case scenario, in which a war would last for 90 to 180 days,
oil supplies were significantly disrupted and terrorist attacks ensued, the
economic would fall back into recession regardless of economic policymaking.
Growth would slow by 4 + percent and unemployment would hit 7.5 percent. 

William Nordhaus Study 

William Nordhaus's comprehensive study, a preview of which appeared in the
December 5 New York Review of Books, concludes that the costs of war range from
roughly $99 billion for a ôshort and favorableö war to $1.9 trillion for a
protracted and unfavorable conflict. 

+ Nordhaus's analysis underscores the point that the largest costs resulting
from a war with Iraq may occur after the war is over, to pay for occupation,
reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. His low cost analysis minimizes
these costs because the history of four decades of US interventions in other
countries suggests that the US will leave Iraq half-built, despite current
talk of ambitious rebuilding plans. But even Nordhaus's low-end estimate is
roughly twice as much as any figure the White House or the Pentagon is willing
to acknowledge. 

+ Nordhaus's worst case scenario omits a number of truly worst case conditions,
such as the use 

[pjnews] US plan for new nuclear arsenal

[parallax]

The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4608823,00.html

US plan for new nuclear arsenal
Secret talks may lead to breaking treaties
Julian Borger in Washington

February 19, 2003

The Bush administration is planning a secret meeting in August to discuss
the construction of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including
mini-nukes, bunker-busters and neutron bombs designed to destroy
chemical or biological agents, according to a leaked Pentagon document.

The meeting of senior military officials and US nuclear scientists at the
Omaha headquarters of the US Strategic Command would also decide whether to
restart nuclear testing and how to convince the American public that the new
weapons are necessary.

The leaked preparations for the meeting are the clearest sign yet that the
administration is determined to overhaul its nuclear arsenal so that it
could be used as part of the new Bush doctrine of pre-emption, to strike
the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons of rogue states.

Greg Mello, the head of the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear watchdog
organisation that obtained the Pentagon documents, said the meeting would
also prepare the ground for a US breakaway from global arms control
treaties, and the moratorium on conducting nuclear tests.

It is impossible to overstate the challenge these plans pose to the
comprehensive test ban treaty, the existing nuclear test moratorium, and US
compliance with article six of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Mr
Mello said. 

The documents leaked to Mr Mello are the minutes of a meeting in the
Pentagon on January 10 this year called by Dale Klein, the assistant to the
defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to prepare the secret conference,
planned for the week of August 4 2003.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for
designing, building and maintaining nuclear weapons, yesterday confirmed the
authenticity of the document. But Anson Franklin, the NNSA head of
governmental affairs, said: We have no request from the defence department
for any new nuclear weapon, and we have no plans for nuclear testing.

The fact is that this paper is talking about what-if scenarios and very
long range planning, Mr Franklin told the Guardian.

However, non-proliferation groups say the Omaha meeting will bring a new US
nuclear arsenal out of the realm of the theoretical and far closer to
reality, in the shape of new bombs and a new readiness to use them.

To me it indicates there are plans proceeding and well under way ... to
resume the development, testing and production of new nuclear weapons. It's
very serious, said Stephen Schwartz, the publisher of the Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, who added that it opened the US to charges of hypocrisy
when it is demanding the disarmament of Iraq and North Korea.

How can we possibly go to the international community or to these countries
and say 'How dare you develop these weapons', when it's exactly what we're
doing? Mr Schwartz said.

The starting point for the January discussion was Mr Rumsfeld's nuclear
posture review (NPR), a policy paper published last year that identified
Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya as potential targets
for US nuclear weapons.

According to the Pentagon minutes, the August meeting in Strategic Command's
bunker headquarters would discuss how to make weapons to match the new
policy. A future arsenal panel would consider: What are the warhead
characteristics and advanced concepts we will need in the post-NPR
environment? 

The panel would also contemplate the requirements for low-yield weapons,
EPWs [earth-penetrating weapons], enhanced radiation weapons, agent defeat
weapons. 

This is the menu of weapons being actively considered by the Pentagon.
Low-yield means tactical warheads of less than a kiloton, mini-nukes,
which advocates of the new arsenal say represent a far more effective
deterrent than the existing huge weapons, because they are more usable.

Earth-penetrating weapons are bunker-busters, which would break through
the surface of the earth before detonating. US weapons scientists believe
they could be used as agent defeat weapons used to destroy chemical or
biological weapons stored underground. The designers are also looking at
low-yield neutron bombs or enhanced radiation weapons, which could destroy
chemical or biological weapons in surface warehouses.

According to the leaked document, the future arsenal panel in Omaha would
also ask the pivotal question: What forms of testing will these new designs
require? 

The Bush administration has been working to reduce the amount of warning the
test sites in the western US desert would need to be reactivated after 10
years lying dormant.

[pjnews] Protect yourself from a terrorist attack

[parallax]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Tips on how to protect yourself from a terrorist attack:

1. Duct tape American flags over all your windows.
2. Watch TV, especially Fox news, constantly for updates
3. Shop, if you are afraid to go outside shop online
4. Make your house a safe house; get rid of all unpatriotic materials
(posters, books, videos, flyers, etc).
5. Reassure your children, tell them three times a day: “ Do not be
afraid, George Bush will save you”.
6. Volunteer for the smallpox and anthrax vaccines.
7. Do not have sex before marriage.
8. Be on the look out for suspicious and un-American activity.  Turn in your 
neighbors, coworkers, family members and friends at the slightest indication of 
dissent.
9. Don’t think too much, too much thinking makes the country more
susceptible to attack.
10.  Send your medical information, credit history, and all other personal
information to John Poindexter for safekeeping.
11. Write your members of Congress and ask for more tax cuts for the rich.
12. Go drinking at a bar even closer to the Capitol (Courtesy of Greenpeace)
13. Remember: for a nuclear attack- duck and cover, for a chemical attack-
 duct and cover.
14. add your own here

The Headlines

Terrorists Claim Responsibility for Snow Storm Shutting Down the East
Coast
Suspicious White Power Falls from Sky
Orange Alert Goes to White Alert: Tom Ridge Says Buy Snow Shovels